MEW 


HE 

MEivrT 


oF:q<cuRR 


•E>D 


^■v. 


•  V     '    *     7  * 


BS  A17  .CA6  v,5 

Martin,  G.  Currie  1865-1937. 

The  books  of  the  New 

Testament 


CENTURY  BIBLE  HANDBOOKS 

General  EpiTOR 
Principal  WALTER  F.  ADENEY,  M.A.,  D.D. 


THE  BOOKS  OF 
THE    NEW   TESTAMENT 


THE  BOOKS  OF 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


y 


REV.  G.  CURRIE  MARTIN,  M.A.,  B.D. 

PROFESSOR   OF    NEW  TESTAMENT    EXEGESIS    AND  CRITICISM    IN    THE   UNITED 

COLLEGE,    BRADFORD,    AND    LANCASHIRE   INDEPENDENT 

COLLEGE,    MANCHESTER 

EDITOR    OF    "proverbs,"   ETC.,    AND    '*  EPHESIANS,"    ETC.,    IN 

"the  CENTURY   bible" 


V 


.^;i5%x 


DEC  12  1910      * 


HODDER   AND   STOUGHTON 

NEW   YORK 

1909 


TO 

MT  COLLEAGUES  AND   STUDENTS 

AT  BRADFORD  AND  MANCHESTER 

AS 

A   SLIGHT    TOKEN 

OF 

AFFECTIONATE  REMEMBRANCE 


CONTENTS 


CHAP. 

I.    THE    LITERATURE    AS    A    WHOLE 
II.    THE    SOURCES    OF    THE    LIFE    OF   JESUS 
SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS     . 

III.  THE   GOSPEL   OF    MATTHEW 
THE    GOSPEL   OF    MARK 
THE    GOSPEL   OF    LUKE 
THE   GOSPEL   OF   JOHN 

IV.  THE   ACTS    OF   THE    APOSTLES 
V.    THE    EPISTLES    OF    PAUL 

I.  THESSALONIANS    . 

II.  THESSALONIANS 
GALATIANS 

I.  CORINTHIANS 

II.  CORINTHIANS 
ROMANS  . 
EPHESIANS 
COLOSSIANS 
PHILEMON 
PHILIPPIANS 


-THE 


PACK 
I 


6 
21 
28 

39 

47 

62 

69 

71 

74 

78 

85 

91 

97 

102 

109 

III 

"3 


CONTENTS 


CHAP.                                                                                                                                                              FACE 

VI.    THE    PASTORAL    EPISTLES        .            .            .            .       Il6 

I.     TIMOTHY      . 

125 

II.    TIMOTHY      . 

128 

TITUS 

132 

VII.    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS 

134 

VIII.    THE   CATHOLIC    EPISTLES 

140 

JAMES       . 

>       140 

I.    PETER 

.       144 

JUDE 

150 

II.    PETER 

155 

L    JOHN   . 

.       160 

II.   JOHN 

.    163 

III.    JOHN 

.    165 

IX.    THE    BOOK    OF   THE    REVELATION 

.    167 

NOTE   A       

.    178 

NOTE    B       

.    178 

INDEX          .            .            .            , 

. 

.    180 

THE   BOOKS   OF 

THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER   I 

INTRODUCTION 

THE  LITERATURE  AS  A  WHOLE 

The  perfection  of  modern  printing  and  the  beauty  and 
compactness  of  our  present-day  books  undoubtedly 
cause  certain  loss  to  the  reader  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  charming  and  convenient  to  have  that  greatest  of 
all  literature  in  such  compass  that  one  can  carry  it  in  a 
tiny  little  book.  But  its  very  form  prevents  the  reader 
from  realising  that  he  has  a  library  rather  than  a  single 
work,  a  literature  rather  than  a  volume.  The  twenty- 
seven  separate  books  which  constitute  our  New  Testament 
cover  the  period  of  at  least  half  a  century,  and  probably 
more  nearly  a  whole  century,  and  are  the  work  of  many 
diverse   minds,    while    they   represent    many   forms   of 


2       BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

literary  production.  Some  are  personal  letters  to  private 
friends,  e.g.  Philemon,  which  can  be  paralleled  by  hun- 
dreds from  the  papyri  recently  discovered  in  Egypt. 
Some  are  letters  of  a  more  elaborate  character,  written 
to  communities,  as  e.g.  Philippians.  Others,  though 
written  in  the  letter  form,  partake  more  of  the  nature 
of  treatises,  as  e.g.  Romans.  There  are  books  which 
seem  to  be  homilies,  or  early  doctrinal  tracts,  like 
Hebrews  and  James.  There  is  the  poetical  vision  of 
the  seer,  embracing  in  itself  much  that  is  found  in  the 
older  Hebrew  literature,  but  inspired  with  the  new  spirit 
of  the  Christian  faith,  in  the  Book  of  Revelation.  There 
are  books  which  are  not  mere  histories,  though  they  have 
a  distinctly  historical  character,  but  present  historical 
events  in  the  light  of  the  special  purpose  they  wish  to 
serve,  and  in  order  to  make  clear  the  truth  they  desire 
to  enforce,  e.g.  Matthew  and  Acts.  One  book  may  be 
said  to  stand  in  a  class  almost  by  itself,  i.e.  the  Gospel  of 
John,  as  even  more  clearly  than  those  just  named  does 
it  use  the  basis  of  history  for  the  purpose  of  teaching 
spiritual  truth.  It  was  early  termed  the  spiritual  gospel, 
and  Christians  of  every  generation  have  felt  this  to  be 
its  peculiar  and  special  quality. 

It  is  not  always  easy  to  discover  the  particular  origin 


LITERATURE    AS    A    WHOLE         3 

of  every  book,  but  we  are  not  without  pretty  clear 
guidance  in  the  majority  of  cases.  Paul's  letters,  for 
instance,  are  obviously  occasional  writings,  i.e.  they 
spring  out  of  some  particular  circumstance  which  calls 
them  into  being.  They  are  not  in  the  majority  of 
instances  premeditated  treatises  like  a  modern  book  of 
theology,  nor  are  they  thrown  into  the  letter  form  as  a 
mere  literary  device ;  but  are  actual  answers  to  definite 
questions,  or  constitute  directions  in  special  difficulties. 
The  Gospels  were  no  doubt  originally  derived  from 
addresses  given  to  Jewish  or  Gentile  communities  in 
order  to  instruct  them  in  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus — 
addresses  such  as  we  find  recorded  in  the  pages  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  seems  that  at  first  there  were 
many  such  presentations  of  our  Lord's  life  and  teaching, 
only  a  few  of  which  have  come  down  to  us  embodied  in 
the  present  Gospels,  and  in  some  other  writings,  of  which 
more  will  be  said  later.  The  beginning  of  Luke's 
Gospel  tells  us  of  at  least  one  attempt  to  unite  these 
scattered  and  probably  slighter  efforts  into  one  more 
careful,  consistent,  and  complete  record.  The  Book  of 
Revelation  is  a  combination  of  letters  and  a  long  pro- 
phetic message.  The  latter  was  probably  sent  to  each 
church  to  which  a  letter  is  addressed,  so  that  each  of 


4       BOOKS    OF    NEW   TESTAMENT 

these  may  be  considered  as  a  separate  preface  to  the 
main  part  of  the  book.  In  Hebrews  and  James  we  may 
possibly  have  specimens  of  the  early  preaching,  or  of  the 
more  formal  teaching  which  was  given  to  the  Christian 
community.  Just  why  these  have  been  preserved  to 
us,  and  others  lost,  it  is  impossible  to  say,  but  we 
should  be  thankful  to  have  so  many  varieties  of  the 
literary  forms  into  which  the  Christian  teaching  of  the 
first  century  naturally  fell. 

It  is  thus  clear  that  the  various  authors  of  the  New 
Testament  books  did  not  invent  literary  methods,  but 
employed  those  that  were  customary  in  their  own  day. 
Letter-writing  then,  as  now,  was  a  common  practice. 
Biography  written  with  a  definite  purpose  is  found  in  the 
scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  e.g.  in  the  stories  of 
Elisha  and  Elijah,  and  also  in  books  like  Nehemiah  and 
Daniel.  The  Book  of  Revelation  belongs  to  the  great 
class  of  apocalyptical  literature,  of  which  the  Jews  had 
very  many  examples.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  of 
James  was  obviously  a  keen  student  of  the  Wisdom 
Literature,  represented  in  the  Old  Testament  by  Proverbs 
and  Ecclesiastes,  and  in  the  Apocrypha  by  the  Book  of 
Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus.  Possibly  such  Greek  writ- 
ings as  the  Memoirs  of  Socrates,  by  Xenophon,  and  the 


LITERATURE    AS    A    WHOLE        5 

Dialogues  of  Plato,  had  some  influence  on  the  writers  of 
the  Gospels — at  any  rate,  on  the  author  of  John's  Gospel. 
It  was  the  freshness  of  the  material  rather  than  the  new- 
ness of  the  form  that  made  the  literature  a  new  thing  in 
the  world,  and  its  originality  is  to  be  sought  rather  in 
what  it  declares  than  in  the  method  of  the  declaration. 
The  writers  were  all  intimately  acquainted  with  the 
scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  had  been  brought 
up  under  its  influence.  And  even  the  great  Personality 
who  is  for  every  one  of  them  the  centre  of  their  thought 
and  teaching,  had  Himself  been  nurtured  on  the  litera- 
ture, and  found  His  most  natural  expression  in  terms  of 
its  language.  It  is  absolutely  essential  for  every  New 
Testament  student  to  keep  this  in  mind,  and  it  is  of  the 
greatest  value  and  instruction  to  have  it  before  the  reader 
in  visible  form.  This  is  secured  for  readers  of  Greek  by 
employing  Westcott  and  Hort  or  Nestle's  text,  and  for 
English  readers  by  the  use  of  the  "  Twentieth  Century 
New  Testament,"  in  all  of  which  quotations  from,  and 
reminiscences  of,  the  Old  Testament  are  indicated  in 
special  type. 

We  now  pass  on  to  the  detailed  consideration  of  the 
various  groups  of  New  Testament  literature. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  SOURCES  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

THE  SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS 

The  word  synoptic  is  now  generally  applied  to  the  record 
of  the  life  of  Christ  contained  in  the  first  three  gospels. 
It  is  derived  from  two  Greek  words  which  signify  a  com- 
bined view  of  any  event,  and  is  appropriate,  since  the 
account  given  of  the  life  of  Jesus  in  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke,  has  much  more  in  common  than  these  three 
Gospels  have  with  the  Gospel  of  John. 

Before  beginning  the  investigation  of  the  problems 
presented  by  the  fact  just  stated,  it  may  be  well  to  see 
what  other  sources  we  have  for  the  life  of  Jesus.  These 
are  found  in  the  following  forms : — 

1.  References  in  books  of  the  New  Testament  other 

than  the  Gospels. 

2.  Eeferences  in  Latin  and  Greek  historians. 

3.  References  in  Rabbinical  writings. 

4.  The  Apocryphal  Gospels. 

5.  Traditional  Sayings  of  Jesus  preserved  in  various 

sources. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS  7 

I.  The  Epistles  of  Paul,  some  of  which  are  the 
earliest  of  the  existing  writings  of  the  New  Testament, 
do  not  as  a  whole  give  us  any  additional  facts  to  those 
recorded  in  the  Gospels,  though  they  confirm  the  main 
outline  of  that  record.  They  concern  themselves  chiefly 
with  references  to  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
but  in  I.  Cor.  xv.  we  have  a  reference  to  an  appearance 
of  the  risen  Lord  to  James,  which  is  not  contained  at  all 
in  our  Gospels,  and  also  one  or  two  other  references 
which  are  not  easily  identified  with  any  of  the  existing 
records.  In  the  early  chapters  of  Acts  we  have  speci- 
mens of  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  which  contain 
short  resumes  of  the  life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  our 
Lord,  as  e.g.  in  Acts  ii.  22-24  a-i"id  Acts  x.  36-43.  A 
very  clear  reference  to  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist 

5  contained  in  one  of  Paul's  speeches  recorded  in  Acts 
Alii.  23-25,  and  in  Acts  xx.  35  there  is  given  a  saying  of 
Jesus  not  recorded  in  our  Gospels.  In  the  Epistle  to 
•■he  Hebrews  we  have  many  references  to  the  earthly  life 

I  Christ,  which  shows  the  familiarity  on  the  part  of  the 
writer,  not  only  with  its  general  outline,  but  with  its 
detail,  there  being  hints  of  His  temptation,  of  His  agony 
in  Gethsemane,  of  the  place  of  His  crucifixion,  and  other 
matters  contained  in  the  epistle.     In  the  First  Epistle 


8       BOOKS    OF   NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  Peter  there  is  the  earliest  reference  to  what  became  a 
common  belief  in  the  Christian  Church,  namely,  to  the 
descent  of  Christ  into  the  world  of  the  dead,  and  to  His 
preaching  the  Gospel  there  (see  I.  Peter  iii.  18-22,  and 
iv.  6).  In  II.  Peter  i.  17,  18,  there  is  a  reference  to  the 
transfiguration.  These  constitute  the  main  passages  in 
which,  outside  the  Gospels,  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  is 
referred  to  in  the  New  Testament. 

2.  Toward  the  end  of  the  first  century  of  our  era  the 
Roman  historian  Tacitus  produced  his  great  work,  en- 
titled "The  Annals,"  and  in  the  fifteenth  book  of  the 
history  he  has  a  reference  to  Christus,  who,  he  says, 
suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  gave  the  name  to  the 
sect  of  Christians,  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  Roman 
historian  is  a  "most  mischievous  superstition."  Practi- 
cally contemporaneous  with  the  work  of  Tacitus  is  that  of 
Josephus,  and  there  are  two  passages  in  his  "Antiquities" 
in  which  Jesus  is  mentioned.  In  book  xviii.  chap.  iii. 
sect.  3,  we  find  the  most  famous  reference,  where  Jesus 
is  not  only  spoken  of  as  a  worker  of  miracles,  and  a 
great  teacher,  but  is  called  the  Christ,  and  mention  is 
made  of  His  death  and  resurrection.  The  passage  is 
much  disputed,  and  probably  is  not  authentic  in  its 
present  form.  But  the  other  passage  in  book  xx.  chap. 
ix.  sect,  I,  shows  that  Josephus  knew  about  Jesus,  for 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS  9 

he  there  mentions  Him,  and  says  that  He  was  called 
Christ. 

3,  In  the  works  of  the  Jewish  Rabbinical  authors 
there  are  frequent  references  to  Jesus,  but  none  of 
them  add  anything  of  historical  value  to  what  is  con- 
tained in  the  Gospels.  Some  of  the  details  are  similar 
to  those  found  in  the  non-canonical  Gospels,  and  others 
are  obviously  scurrilous  statements  of  prejudiced  enemies 
of  the  Christian  faith.  (See  article  in  Dictionary  of 
Christ  and  the  Gospels  (T.  &  T.  Clark),  vol.  ii.,  "  Christ 
in  Jewish  Literature.") 

4.  Of  the  large  number  of  the  apocryphal  Gospels 
that  exist,  two  at  least  belong  to  the  first  century,  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Gospel  of 
Peter.  The  former  is  only  known  to  us  in  fragments 
preserved  by  various  writers,  and  these  fragments  con- 
tain some  of  the  stories  known  to  us  in  the  canonical 
Gospels  in  slightly  different  form,  e.g.  a  very  curious 
account  of  the  temptation,  and  a  detailed  story  of  the 
appearance  of  our  Lord  to  his  brother  James  after  the 
resurrection.  The  origin  of  the  book  is  at  present 
obscure,  but  there  is  no  good  reason  for  entirely  setting 
aside  its  testimony,  and  one  of  the  most  interesting 
discoveries  that  could  be  made  would  be  to  find  it  in 
its  completeness.      Of  the  Gospel  of  Peter  we  have  a 


lo     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

long  section,  dealing  with  the  death  and  resurrection. 
It  is  obviously  written  with  a  strong  prejudice  against  the 
Jews,  and  also  emanates  from  a  section  of  the  Christians 
who  denied  the  real  humanity  of  Christ.  It  is  appa- 
rently mainly  based  upon  our  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and 
such  details  as  are  contained  in  it  that  are  at  variance 
with  the  New  Testament  story  are  either  unimportant 
or  probably  erroneous,  as  for  example,  when  the  order 
for  the  crucifixion  is  assigned  to  Herod  rather  than  to 
Pilate.  In  the  resurrection  narrative  quite  new  elements 
are  introduced,  and  some  of  them  of  the  obviously 
exaggerated  character  that  belongs  to  legend.  Of  the 
other  apocryphal  Gospels  the  most  important  are  those 
which  deal  with  the  infancy  and  childhood  of  Jesus,  the 
most  famous  being  the  Protevangelium  of  James,  the 
childhood  gospel  of  Thomas,  and  the  Arabic  gospel  of  the 
childhood.  Many  incidents  not  found  in  our  Gospels, 
but  familiar  in  Christian  legend  and  poetry,  as,  e.g.,  the 
sudden  arrest  of  movement  that  took  place  throughout 
the  whole  world  of  nature  at  the  moment  of  the  birth  of 
Christ,  are  contained  in  these  books,  but  they  are  almost 
certainly  imaginary  romances,  and  more  than  one  of 
them  not  earlier  than  the  third  century.  Into  the 
further  question  of  the  apocryphal   Gospels   it  is  not 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS         ii 

possible  to  go  here,  but  reference  may  be  made  to 
Professor  Andrews'  volume  in  this  series,  and  to  Pro- 
fessor Findlay's  article  in  vol.  i.  of  Dictionary  of  Christ 
and  the  Gospels  (T.  &  T.  Clark). 

5.  The  early  Christian  writers  are  accustomed  to 
quote  numerous  sayings  of  Jesus,  of  which  we  have  no 
record  in  our  canonical  Gospels.  For  instance,  several 
of  them  contain  the  words  as  a  command  of  Jesus, 
"  Become  ye  approved  bankers ; "  and  amongst  the  better 
known;and  better  authenticated  sayings  are  the  following  : 
"  Ask  great  things,  and  the  small  shall  be  added  to  you  ; " 
"  Ask  heavenly  things,  and  the  earthly  shall  be  added 
to  you;"  "Thou  hast  seen  thy  brother,  thou  hast  seen 
thy  God ; "  "  In  whatsoever  I  may  find  you,  in  this  also 
will  I  judge  you."  Several  sayings  are  contained  in 
certain  manuscripts,  one  in  the  famous  manuscript  now 
found  in  the  University  Library  at  Cambridge,  and 
others  in  the  leaves  of  papyrus  recently  discovered  at 
Oxyrhynchus.  The  most  accessible  account  of  all  these 
for  the  English  reader  is  in  Griffinhoofe's  "  The  Unwritten 
Sayings  of  Christ,"  published  by  Edward  Arnold,  1903,  or 
Pick's  "  ParaHpomena,"  published  by  Kegan  Paul,  1908. 

To  return  now  to  the  question  of  our  Synoptic  Gospels. 
The  first  point  that  is  noteworthy  to  any  reader  of  these 


12     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

three  books  is  the  large  amount  of  common  material 
that  is  contained  in  them.  Briefly,  that  common  material 
covers  the  period  from  the  mission  of  John  the  Baptist 
to  the  mention  of  the  fact  of  our  Lord's  resurrection.  It 
is  found  in  its  simplest  form  in  Mark,  though  narratives 
which  are  common  to  the  three  frequently  appear  with 
more  elaborate  detail  in  his  Gospel  than  in  the  others. 
The  order  in  which  Mark  recounts  the  incidents  is  fol- 
lowed more  closely  by  Luke  than  by  Matthew,  but  both 
of  these  writers  make  considerable  and  frequent  altera- 
tion in  Mark's  language.  These  obvious  facts  demand 
from  the  student  some  theory  to  account  for  them, 
and  the  main  theories  may  be  classified  as  follows : — 

(i)  Absolute  independence.  Those  who  take  up  this 
position  consider  that  the  theory  of  the  direct  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  sufficient  to  account 
for  all  the  problems  offered  by  them  in  their  existing 
form.  It  is  supposed  that  the  Spirit  guided  each  writer 
to  tell  his  story  in  his  own  way,  and  that  all  resemblances 
and  differences  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  purpose  of 
the  Divine  Author.  Without  denying  for  a  moment  that 
this  is  possible,  it  is  certainly  neither  probable,  nor  in 
accordance  with  what  we  know  otherwise  of  the  Divine 
method.     The  slight  variations   in   passages  otherwise 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS         13 

identical  are  on  such  a  theory  extremely  difficult  to 
account  for,  and  it  is  a  quite  needless  strain  to  put  upon 
our  belief  in  Divine  superintendence  to  insist  that  these 
minor  alterations  are  due  to  the  mind  of  the  Divine 
Spirit. 

(2)  The  theory  of  a  threefold  tradition.  This  theory 
may  be  held  either  as  an  oral  or  as  a  written  source.  It 
starts  from  the  assumption  that  the  early  teachers  had 
agreed  upon  a  form  of  presentation  for  the  essential  facts 
of  the  Gospel,  either  as  a  definite  arrangement  made  at 
the  outset  of  their  work,  or  as  the  result  of  experience. 
This  material  is  found  in  what  is  common  to  the  first 
three  Gospels,  and  lies  at  the  basis  of  each  of  them. 
The  document,  if  document  it  was,  is  not  any  longer  in 
existence  in  a  separate  form,  but  can  be  discovered  from 
a  careful  comparison  of  the  three  separate  narratives. 
This  material  will  be  found  in  a  convenient  form  by 
English  readers  as  the  Prologue  to  the  New  Testament 
volume  in  Dent's  *'  Everyman's  Library,"  and  should  be 
carefully  read  through  as  an  instructive  object  lesson  in 
what  is  really  common  material  of  the  synoptic  tradition. 
The  difficulty  of  accepting  this  theory  as  a  satisfactory 
explanation  is  twofold — (i)  That  there  is  no  proof  of  its 
independent  existence;  and  (2)  that  if  it  had  so  existed, 


14     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

it  is  almost  impossible  to  understand  how  the  minor 
modifications  that  have  been  introduced  into  it  by  each 
one  of  the  writers  could  have  arisen. 

(3)  Oral  tradition.  It  is  quite  obvious  to  every 
one  that  the  Gospel  must  first  of  all  have  taken  shape 
in  preaching  and  teaching,  and  that  the  early  type  of 
such  addresses  is  to  be  found  in  the  speeches  recorded 
in  Acts,  so  that  some  kind  of  oral  tradition  must  lie 
at  the  back  of  all  the  written  forms  that  exist,  or  ever 
existed.  But  it  is  a  further  question  whether  oral 
tradition  alone  will  suffice  to  account  for  the  problems 
afforded  by  the  existing  conditions  of  the  synoptics. 
It  used  to  be  supposed  that  this  would  suffice,  and 
in  proof  of  the  possibility  of  a  definite  form  of  narra- 
tive being  thus  preserved,  we  were  bidden  remember 
the  extraordinary  accuracy  of  the  Oriental  memory, 
and  the  way  in  which,  for  example,  religious  teachers 
among  the  Arabs  are  able  to  recite  the  sections  of 
the  Koran.  But  those  who  thus  argued  forgot  that 
in  such  cases  there  already  existed  a  definite  body  of 
teaching  in  a  final  form,  which  had  only  to  be  learned 
and  repeated,  whereas  we  have  to  account  for  the 
growth  and  presentation  of  something  which  had  not 
yet  acquired  a  defmite  form,  as  is  proved  by  the  very 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS         15 

varieties  of  the  narratives  themselves.  Again,  the  New 
Testament  is  witness  that  other  narratives  already 
existed,  for  the  beginning  of  Luke's  Gospel  tells  us 
that  "many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narra- 
tive concerning  those  matters,"  which  surely  implies 
written  narratives,  since  this  is  what  the  writer  himself 
proposes  to  execute. 

(4)  Dependence  of  the  Gospels  upon  one  another. 
It  is  a  very  old  theory  which  suggests  that  these  three 
writers  may  have  copied  from  one  another.  Thus  Mark 
was  called  by  Augustine  the  follower  and  abbreviator 
of  Matthew,  and  others  have  supposed  either  that 
Luke  was  acquainted  with  Matthew's  Gospel,  or  vice 
versa.  It  is  extremely  difficult,  however,  to  under- 
stand how  any  one  who  had  Matthew's  Gospel  before 
him  would  produce  such  a  narrative  as  that  contained 
in  Mark.  What  reason  could  we  suppose  for  the 
enormous  amount  of  omission  that  in  such  a  case 
must  have  taken  place?  The  same  thing  is  true  if 
we  suppose  the  relation  of  copyist  to  have  existed 
between  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  in  addition,  we 
should  have  to  account  for  the  way  in  which  so  many 
sayings  are  found  in  altered  forms  in  these  two  Gospels. 
Further,  if  we  suppose  Mark  to  have  been  the   sole 


i6     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

source  of  either  of  the  other  two,  it  does  not  suffice, 
seeing  that  there  remains  a  large  amount  of  material 
common  to  the  two  which  is  not  found  in  that  Gospel. 
We  are  therefore  driven  to  another  explanation,  which 
to-day  in  one  or  other  of  its  forms  holds  the  field 
among  New  Testament  students,  namely — 

(5)  The  two-document  hypothesis.  This  supposes 
that  at  the  basis  of  Matthew  and  Luke  there  lie  at 
least  two  documents,  the  one  of  which  is  substan- 
tially, if  not  actually,  represented  by  our  Mark,  and 
the  other  by  what  is  known  as  the  Logia,  which  is 
supposed  to  have  contained  a  large  amount  of  our 
Lord's  teaching,  now  found  in  the  records  common 
to  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  existence  of  the  Logia  is 
not  a  pure  assumption,  for  we  shall  find  when  we  come 
to  the  consideration  of  Matthew's  Gospel  that  early 
tradition  tells  us  about  such  a  document.  But  its 
exact  reconstruction  is  a  matter  of  enormous  difficulty, 
and  one  about  which  New  Testament  scholars  are  very 
divided  in  their  opinions.  Some  think  it  consisted 
of  records  of  teaching,  and  nothing  else ;  while  others, 
with  greater  probability,  describe  it  as  containing  brief 
introductory  and  explanatory  narratives.  There  is  a 
further    question   as   to   whether    Mark    himself   knew 


THE    SYNOPTIC     GOSPELS         17 

this  Logia  document,  and,  if  he  did,  whether  he  used 
it,  or,  presupposing  its  existence,  made  his  own  docu- 
ment merely  supplementary  to  it.  The  latter  theory 
seems  on  the  whole  more  probable.  Further,  we 
have  to  ask  whether  the  Logia  are  found  in  their  more 
primitive  form  in  Matthew  or  Luke.  When  we  regard 
the  Beatitudes  and  the  Lord's  Prayer,  to  take  two 
simple  instances,  it  certainly  seems  that  Luke  pre- 
serves the  more  primitive  form.  There  arise,  how- 
ever, numerous  further  questions  about  written  sources 
of  the  Gospels.  Every  reader  knows  that  there  are 
parables  in  Matthew  not  found  in  Luke,  and  many 
in  Luke  not  found  in  Matthew.  Besides,  there  is  a 
whole  section  of  narrative  in  Luke's  Gospel  which 
has  practically  no  parallel  in  either  of  the  others,  and 
this  is  found  mainly  in  chapters  ix.  to  xix.  Here  and 
there  Luke  is  found  in  agreement  with  Mark,  where 
Matthew  has  no  parallel,  which  is  only  an  additional 
proof  of  what  was  said  above,  that  Luke  follows  Mark's 
order  with  greater  closeness  than  does  Matthew.  In 
both  Matthew  and  Luke  we  find  much  independence 
of  any  source  known  to  us  when  we  come  to  the 
narratives  of  the  infancy  and  of  the  resurrection. 
In    such   cases    we   are    probably   dealing    with    quite 


i8     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

independent  sources,  and  it  appears  that  each  evangelist 
must  have  had  access  to  sources  of  narrative  of  which 
we  have  now  no  trace.  A  very  interesting  example 
is  to  be  found  in  Mark  xiii.,  which  is  the  longest 
single  section  of  teaching  found  in  the  Gospel.  It 
was  probably  issued  as  an  independent  document,  and 
may  be  the  earliest  of  all  the  written  sections  of  the 
New  Testament,  seeing  that  Apocalypse  was  so  popular 
a  form  of  literature,  and  also  that  in  I.  Thessalonians 
Paul  seems  to  be  familiar  with  the  contents  of  the 
passage,  and  also  to  assume  that  the  Thessalonians 
knew  it.  The  way  in  which  this  document  was  used 
by  Matthew  and  Luke  forms  an  easy  and  instructive 
study  in  the  methods  these  writers  pursued. 

There  is  no  direct  independent  evidence  of  the 
separate  existence  of  any  or  all  of  these  documents, 
save  the  one  reference  to  the  Logia  by  Papias,  which 
will  be  found  quoted  under  the  account  of  Matthew's 
Gospel.  The  form,  however,  in  which  quotations  from 
the  Gospels  are  found  in  the  earliest  Christian  writings 
frequently  suggests  rather  a  general  knowledge  of  the 
synoptic  tradition  than  an  exact  acquaintance  with 
the  Gospels  as  we  know  them.  This,  of  course,  may 
be  accounted  for  in  two  ways,  namely,  that  the  writers 
knew  the  Logia,  and  did  not  know  our  present  Gospels, 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS         19 

or  that  they  quoted  inexactly  from  memory.  What 
is  very  certain  is  that  the  general  substance  of  our 
synoptics  was  quite  familiar  to  the  earliest  writers, 
and  that  the  material  contained  in  them  was  assumed 
as  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  among  the  Christian 
communities  to  whom  they  wrote. 

NOTE 

In  the  following  pages  there  will  be  frequent  refer- 
ences to  certain  writers  who  constitute  the  earliest 
witnesses  to  the  use  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
in  the  Christian  Church.  It  may  be  convenient  here  to 
set  forth  a  list  of  the  main  writers,  with  their  dates,  and 
the  contracted  forms  by  which  their  writings  are  gene- 
rally quoted,  so  that  the  date  of  their  testimony  may  be 
at  once  clear. 

Clement  of  Rome  (Clem.),  whose  letter  to  the  Church 
at  Corinth  dates  from  about  the  year  95. 

Ignatius  (Ign.),  who  wrote  letters  to  several  churches 
from  Asia  Minor  in  and  about  the  year  no. 

Polycarp  (Pol.),  who  was  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  and  a 
contemporary  of  Ignatius.  His  letter  is,  therefore,  of 
the  same  date. 

The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (Bar.)  is  a  work  more  diffi- 
cult to  date,  but  may  roughly  be  dated  at  about  100. 

The  Teaching  of  the  Apostles  (Did.,  which  is  a  con- 
traction  of  the  Greek  word  didache,  i.e.   teaching),  a 


20     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

work  of  Christian  instruction,  the  date  of  which  it  is 
difficult  to  fix,  but  may  probably  be  given  as  about  130. 

The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  (Herm.)  is  an  apocalypse, 
dating  from  about  the  year  150. 

The  Second  Epistle  of  Clement  (II.  Clem.),  which 
is  really  not  an  epistle  at  all,  but  a  homily,  dates  from 
about  170,  and  the  Epistle  of  the  Churches  of  Vienne 
and  Lyons — an  important  document  of  about  180  a.d. 

The  following  Christian  writers  all  date  from  the 
second  half  of  the  second  century  :  Justin  Martyr  (Just.) ; 
Tatian  (Tat);  the  letter  to  Diognetus  (Diog.);  Irenaeus 
(Iren.).  To  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  belong 
the  writings  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Clem.  Alex.)  •, 
Tertullian  (Tert.) ;  and  Origen  (Orig.),  while  the  works 
of  Cyprian  (Cyp.)  centre  round  the  date  250.  Of  later 
writers,  the  only  one  that  needs  to  be  here  named  is 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  whose  main  work  was  published 
about  330.  The  oldest  extant  list  of  books  of  the  New 
Testament  is  that  known  as  the  Muratorian  Fragment, 
which  dates  from  the  end  of  the  second  century.  It 
contains  most  of  the  books  to  be  found  in  our  New 
Testament,  and  one  or  two  others  not  now  recognised 
as  canonical.  It  will  be  referred  to  as  Mur.  Other 
witnesses  are  the  ancient  versions,  mainly  the  old  Latin 
and  the  old  Syriac,  which  were  probably  made  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  though,  of  course, 
none  of  our  present  MSB.  date  from  that  time. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE    GOSPEL    OF    MATTHEW 

External  Evidence.— Of  this  Gospel  and  its  author  the 
earliest  mention  known  to  us  is  in  a  sentence  of  Papias 
preserved  in  Eusebius,  where  he  tells  us  "  Matthew 
composed  the  Logia  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  each 
one  interpreted  these  as  he  was  able."  This  sentence 
causes  more  difficulty  than  it  clears  up,  because  it  seems 
impossible  to  identify  the  Logia  here  spoken  of  with  the 
Gospel  as  we  know  it,  and  if  it  does  not  mean  our 
Gospel,  the  question  is,  what  does  it  mean.  Can  we 
reproduce  the  Logia  from  the  existing  Gospel  or  not? 
When  we  come  to  the  witness  of  Irenaeus,  he  tells  us  that 
"  Matthew  produced  a  writing  of  the  Gospel,  written 
among  the  Hebrews  in  their  own  dialect."  In  the 
writings  of  Ignatius  there  are  many  quotations  which, 
though  not  in  verbally  accurate  form  taken  from  our 
Greek  Matthew,  are  so  closely  allied  with  it  as  to  create 


22     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

a  strong  probability  that  they  come  from  that  work ;  but 
as  many  of  them  are  references  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus, 
there  is  no  direct  proof  that  they  may  not  be  derived 
from  a  collection  of  these  sayings  now  embodied  in 
Matthew's  Gospel.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  quota- 
tions that  occur  in  the  first  apology  of  Justin  Martyr. 
Further  confusion  appears  to  have  been  introduced  into 
some  of  the  testimony  to  this  Gospel  by  the  existence 
of  a  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  which  Jerome 
tells  us  existed  in  Hebrew,  and  was  largely  used  in  certain 
sections  of  the  Church.  It  may  be  that  this  other  docu- 
ment was  sometimes  meant  when  the  Hebrew  Matthew 
was  spoken  of,  and  vice  versa.  Before  the  end  of  the 
second  century  it  is  quite  clear  that  our  Matthew  was 
the  book  generally  referred  to  when  any  reference  is 
made  to  a  Gospel  under  that  name. 

Material  of  Book. — When  we  examine  the  book 
itself,  we  find  that  if  we  neglect  for  the  moment  chaps,  i. 
and  ii.,  it  follows  the  general  line  of  Mark,  but  we  are 
very  soon  aware  that  there  is  a  great  deal  more  material 
in  it  than  is  contained  in  that  Gospel.  To  begin  with, 
we  have  some  account  of  the  content  of  John's  preach- 
ing, then  a  long  narrative  of  the  Temptation,  and  when 
we  come  to  the  fifth  chapter,  we  find  what  is  most  char- 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    MATTHEW     23 

acteristic  of  the  Gospel,  a  long  address  of  Jesus,  which 
lasts  on  to  the  end  of  chap.  vii.  This  address  con- 
cludes with  a  phrase  which  recurs  in  slightly  varying 
form  in  four  other  passages,  namely,  "  when  Jesus  ended 
these  words  "  {cf.  xi.  i ;  xiii.  53  ;  xix.  i ;  xxvi.  i).  It  has 
been  suggested  that  these  may  mark  the  original  endings 
of  the  Logia,  since  we  know  that  Papias's  book  on  the 
Logia  was  divided  into  five  parts.  In  chaps,  xiii.,  xviii., 
xxiii.,  xxiv.,  and  xxv.  we  have  also  long  series  of  teach- 
ings, and  it  seems  to  be  the  method  of  this  evangeHst  to 
mass  sayings  of  our  Lord  together  in  such  groups.  It  is 
for  this  reason  that  it  seems  the  most  probable  theory  of 
the  composition  of  the  Gospel,  that  in  addition  to  Mark, 
we  should  suppose  him  to  have  also  had  a  document 
which  consisted  mainly  of  such  teaching.  This  is  now 
generally  designated  by  the  symbol  Q  (from  the  German 
Quelle^  i.e.  source).  Opinions  differ  as  to  how  much  of 
the  Gospel  is  covered  by  Q ;  Harnack,  for  instance,  being 
of  opinion  that  it  never  contained  any  story  of  the  Pas- 
sion. This  only  accounts  for  that  amount  of  the  teach- 
ing that  is  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  for 
the  material  peculiar  to  Matthew  we  must  suppose  that 
other  sources  were  in  existence  from  which  he  drew. 
There  is  no  real  difficulty  about  this,  however,  since  oral 

C 


24     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

tradition  would  account  for  a  certain  amount,  and  scat- 
tered written  material  for  the  rest.  To  the  latter  must 
be  assigned  the  genealogy,  the  narratives  of  the  infancy, 
and  probably  other  sections.  It  is  sometimes  quite  easy 
to  see  how  Matthew  introduces  his  new  material  into 
the  narrative  from  which  he  is  quoting.  A  good  example 
is  to  be  found  in  chap.  xiv.  22-23.  When  this  is  com- 
pared with  Mark  vi.  45-51,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
narrative  about  Peter's  walking  on  the  water  is  clearly 
inserted ;  and  when  he  resumes  the  Marcan  narrative  in 
ver.  32,  he  alters  the  verbs  to  the  plural,  in  order  to  suit 
the  additional  incident  he  has  introduced.  Greater 
difficulty  attaches  to  slight  alterations  that  Matthew 
sometimes  makes;  e.g.  in  chap.  viii.  28  he  speaks  of  two 
demoniacs,  where  Mark  and  Luke  only  name  one,  and 
a  similar  alteration  is  found  in  chap.  xx.  30.  These  are 
not  isolated  cases,  and  it  appears  to  have  been  his 
manner  to  heighten  the  wonder  of  such  narratives  in 
this  way.  In  one  instance  the  doubling  seems  to  have 
come  from  a  misreading  of  prophecy ;  see  xxi.  5.  He 
often  appears  to  use  great  freedom  in  his  editing  of 
sayings,  for  the  hypothesis  that  he  drew  them  from  a 
source  different  from  that  used  by  Luke  would  increase 
rather  than  lessen  the  difficulty.     Well-known  examples 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    MATTHEW     25 

are  found  in  the  Beatitudes  ((/.  Matt.  v.  3-12  with  Luke 
vi.  20-23)  and  the  Lord's  Prayer  {cf.  Matt.  vi.  9-15  with 
Luke  xi.  2-4).  In  addition,  the  following  passages  may 
be  compared :  Matt.  vii.  11  with  Luke  xi.  13;  Matt.  xii. 
39-41  with  Lukexi.  29-30;  Matt.  xix.  16,  17,  with  Luke 
xviii.  18,  19. 

The  attribution  of  this  Gospel  to  the  Apostle  Matthew, 
it  will  be  seen,  is  purely  traditional,  and  the  most  pro- 
bable explanation  is  that  Matthew  himself,  as  Papias 
says,  produced  a  work  in  Aramaic  which  was  the  collo- 
quial language  of  Palestine,  and  that  this  lies  at  the  back 
of  our  existing  Gospel.  It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  in  its 
present  form  the  book  is  the  work  of  one  of  the  Apostles. 

We  have  thus  a  greater  freedom  in  approaching  the 
question  of  date,  and  have  to  decide  that  mainly  from 
internal  evidence.  The  indications  that  guide  us  are  in 
the  main  three,  (i)  The  use  of  Mark's  Gospel  shows 
that  this  book  must  have  been  written  later  than  it, 
though  not  from  that  fact  alone  much  later.  (2)  The 
references  in  chap.  xxiv.  to  the  tribulations  of  the  latter 
days,  particularly  ver.  15,  where  he  has  altered  the  words 
"  where  he  ought  not"  of  Mark  to  "in  the  holy  place," 
though  he  has  preserved  the  explanatory  parenthesis, 
"  let  him  that  readeth  understand."     Here  we  find  Jeru- 


26     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

salem  definitely  indicated.  Some  consider  that  this 
points  to  the  present  form  of  that  chapter  being  written 
either  before  or  immediately  after  the  siege  of  Jerusalem. 
This  is  not,  however,  at  all  necessary,  since  the  cir- 
cumstance may  be  explained  either  by  the  evangelist's 
having  embodied  an  older  document  without  alteration, 
or  by  putting  himself  in  imagination  into  the  position 
of  the  speaker.  It  is  true  that  the  whole  tone  of  the 
chapter  (see  especially  vers.  14,  30,  and  34)  points  to  an 
immediacy  of  the  Lord's  return,  but  that  was  a  faith 
long  prevalent  in  the  early  Church,  and  cannot  in  itself 
be  used  as  a  proof  of  early  date.  (3)  As  a  consideration 
on  the  other  hand,  we  have  many  passages  in  the  Gospel 
which  appear  to  point  to  a  more  ecclesiastical  position 
than  is  found  in  any  of  the  other  Gospels.  This  is  not 
only  the  case  with  the  occurrence  of  the  word  Church 
(see  xvi.  19 ;  xviii.  17),  which  only  occurs  in  this  Gospel, 
but  much  more  with  the  conception  of  the  Church,  which 
these  and  other  passages  reveal.  Further,  we  find  this 
Gospel  has  a  greater  regard  for  Peter  than  any  of  the 
others,  and  tells  incidents  about  him  not  contained  else- 
where (see  xiv.  28-30;  xvi.  17-20;  xvii.  24-27).  The 
commission  to  the  Twelve  reported  in  chap.  x.  (see  espe- 
cially vers.  16-23  and  40-42)  reveals  a  lateness  of  tone, 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    MATTHEW     27 

and  the  latter  passage  probably  uses  the  word  '•'  prophet " 
in  the  technical  sense  it  assumed  in  the  early  Church. 
These  indications  suggest  Rome  as  the  place  from  which 
the  Gospel  in  its  present  form  emanated.  The  words  of 
Von  Soden  probably  express  the  truth  :  "  In  this  Gospel 
the  Roman  spirit  triumphs  over  the  Pauline,  the  legal 
over  the  religious,  the  tendency  to  look  backward  over 
that  to  look  forward."  If  this  view  be  correct,  the  Gospel 
may  probably  be  dated  in  and  about  the  year  90,  though 
it  is  impossible  to  dogmatise  about  such  matters. 

The  point  of  view  of  the  writer  is  obviously  that 
of  a  Jewish  Christian,  and  one  great  object  he  had  in 
view  was  to  make  quite  clear  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah.  The  whole  trend  of  the  Gospel  is  designed 
to  prove  this  fact,  and  the  very  form  of  the  genealogy 
with  which  it  opens  is  adopted  for  that  reason.  The 
writer  is  well  acquainted  with  the  prophetic  literature, 
though  probably  his  numerous  quotations  are  drawn 
from  some  list  of  Messianic  prophecies  already  in  exist- 
ence, as  these  appear  to  have  been  common  among 
the  early  Christians.  This  dominant  idea  controls  his 
whole  work,  and  there  are  many  passages  in  which 
he  shows  his  sympathy  with  the  specially  Jewish  point 
of  view — e.g.  when  Christ  says,  "I  was  not  sent  save 


28     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel"  (xv.  24), 
and  when  He  limits  His  disciples'  work  to  the  same 
confines  {cf.  x.  6,  23).  Much  stress  is  also  laid  upon 
the  importance  and  value  of  the  Mosaic  Law  (see 
V.  18  ;  xix.  3 ;  xxiv.  20),  and  the  rewards  of  the 
kingdom  are  spoken  of  frequently  in  terms  suggestive 
of  a  Jewish  colouring  (see  xix.  28 ;  xxi.  43).  It  is 
not  impossible  to  connect  this  point  of  view  with  the 
suggestion  above  made  that  the  Gospel  was  written 
in  Rome,  and  has  the  mark  of  the  early  Catholic 
Church  upon  it,  because  we  know  that  part  at  least 
of  the  Church  in  Rome  was  strongly  Jewish  in  char- 
acter, and  the  Palestinean  colouring  that  is  certainly 
present  in  the  Gospel  may  be  owing  to  those  original 
documents  which  lie  behind  it,  and  to  the  strong 
sympathy  of  its  author  with  the  Church  in  Jerusalem, 
from  which,  indeed,  he  may  himself  have  come. 

THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK 
External  Evidence. — It  is  from  Papias  that  we  learn 
that  "  Mark,  having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter, 
wrote  down  accurately  everything  that  he  remembered, 
without,  however,  recording  in  order  what  was  either 
said  or  done  by  Christ.     For  neither  did  he  hear  the 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    MARK  29 

Lord,  nor  did  he  follow  Him ;  but  afterwards  attended 
Peter,  who  adapted  His  instructions  to  the  needs  of 
his  hearers,  but  had  no  design  of  giving  a  connected 
account  of  the  Lord's  oracles  (or  words).  So  then, 
Mark  made  no  mistake  while  he  thus  wrote  down 
some  things  as  he  remembered  them,  for  he  made 
it  his  one  care  not  to  omit  anything  that  he  heard, 
or  to  set  down  any  false  statement  therein."  This  is 
the  fullest  account  we  have  from  any  early  writer  of 
the  origin  of  any  Gospel.  The  earliest  writers,  as  in 
the  case  of  Matthew,  do  not  afford  proof  of  a  know- 
ledge of  Mark,  and  inasmuch  as  he  has  less  teaching, 
and  the  early  writers  generally  quote  actual  sayings  of 
Jesus,  their  evidence  is  less  convincing  than  in  the 
case  of  Matthew.  In  Justin  Martyr  there  is  a  refer- 
ence to  the  sons  of  Zebedee  being  called  Boanerges, 
which  is  "sons  of  thunder,"  which  statement  is  only 
now  found  in  Mark's  Gospel;  and  Tatian,  from  the 
fact  that  he  compiled  a  harmony  of  the  four  Gospels, 
is  sufficient  evidence  that  Mark  was  well  known  before 
his  day.  There  is  thus  evidence  from  Christian  tradi- 
tion that  Mark  was  current  in  the  early  part  of  the 
second  century,  and  was  definitely  associated  with  the 
name  of  Peter  as  its  chief  authority. 


30     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

We  have  also  seen  that  internal  evidence  proves 
that  Mark  is  the  most  probable  source  of  the  histori- 
cal framework  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  since  the  great 
mass  of  it  is  taken  up  into  one  or  other  of  these 
Gospels.  Indeed,  almost  all  the  material  peculiar  to 
Mark  is  (i)  the  parable  contained  in  iv.  26-29;  (2) 
the  miracles  of  the  healing  of  the  deaf  and  dumb  man 
(vii.  31-37),  and  of  the  blind  man  (viii.  22-26);  (3) 
the  questions  addressed  to  the  disciples  (viii.  17, 
and  ix.  33);  (4)  the  young  man  described  in  xiv.  51, 
52 ;  (5)  Jesus  in  the  hands  of  the  servants  of  the  High 
Priest  (xiv.  65) ;  (6)  and  Pilate's  question  to  the  cen- 
turion (xv.  44).  But  in  addition  to  the  actual  incidents 
that  are  peculiar  to  Mark,  there  are  certain  points 
of  language  and  style  that  are  very  characteristic. 
His  retention  of  the  original  Aramaic  forms  of  words 
and  phrases  {cf.  iii.  17;  vii.  11;  xv.  34,  t^x.). 
Greek  scholars  also  find  many  traces  of  Aramaic  con- 
structions in  his  Greek.  Some  have,  indeed,  gone  so 
far  as  to  suggest  that  our  Gospel  is  a  translation  of 
an  Aramaic  original,  but  the  indications  that  have 
led  to  this  conclusion  may  quite  as  easily,  and  more 
probably,  be  due  to  the  state  of  affairs  mentioned  by 
Papias,  namely,  that  Mark  was  doing  his  best  to  re- 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    MARK  31 

present  as  closely  as  possible  in  another  tongue  the 
form  of  teaching  due  to  Peter.  He  is  an  extremely 
vivid  writer,  and  almost  always  describes  his  scenes 
not  only  with  the  style,  but  in  the  actual  tenses  of 
an  eye-witness.  His  narratives  are  very  full  of  such 
little  points  as  only  an  eye-witness  would  notice — e.g. 
the  comparison  of  the  people  gathered  on  the  green 
grass  when  they  were  fed  by  the  Lord  to  beds  of 
garden  flowers  with  their  many  colours ;  the  fact 
that  Christ  took  the  little  children  into  His  arms;  the 
statement  that  the  colt  for  which  the  disciples  were 
sent  was  tied  up  in  the  open  street.  He  has  also 
many  words  that  point  to  a  knowledge  of  the  inner 
thought  and  mood  of  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  (see 
vi.  6;  xiv.  33;  x.  32;  xiv.  5). 

There  is  one  very  interesting  point  of  textual  criti- 
cism with  reference  to  this  Gospel.  A  glance  at  the 
R.V.  in  chap.  xvi.  will  show  a  considerable  space 
between  the  eighth  and  ninth  verses,  and  a  footnote 
tells  us  that  some  authorities  omit  the  last  twelve 
verses,  while  others  have  a  different  ending  to  the  Gospel. 
The  fact  is  that  there  exist  in  all  four  different  con- 
clusions to  Mark's  Gospel,  (i)  There  are  those  MSS., 
namely  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican,  which  are  the  best 


32     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  all,  and  the  recently  discovered  Sinaitic  Syrian 
version,  one  of  the  oldest,  and  two  other  old  versions, 
which  close  the  Gospel  with  the  eighth  verse,  though 
the  Vatican  leaves  a  blank  space,  as  if  the  scribe 
had  known  of  the  ending  he  eventually  meant  to  insert. 
It  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  the  Gospel  could  origi- 
nally have  finished  in  this  form,  for  the  last  Greek  word 
is  a  particle,  which  could  not  have  concluded  a  sentence. 
We  must  suppose,  therefore,  either  that  the  author 
had  been  abruptly  interrupted  in  the  middle  of  his 
task,  or  that  the  last  page  or  pages  of  his  manuscript 
must  have  disappeared.  It  is  hardly  possible  that 
this  could  have  happened  during  his  lifetime  without 
the  lack  being  supplied,  and  so  some  think  that  in 
the  second  century  all  MSS.  of  Mark  disappeared  save 
one,  and  that  from  this  one  the  final  leaf  had  been 
lost.  (2)  The  large  majority  of  MSS.  have  the  ending 
contained  in  our  New  Testament,  and  it  is  quoted  as  part 
of  Mark  by  Irenaeus.  The  first  writer  who  definitely 
rejected  the  verses,  so  far  as  we  know,  is  Eusebius.  In 
a  tenth-century  Armenian  MS.  they  are  attributed  to  the 
Presbyter  Ariston,  which  probably  stands  for  Aristion, 
who  is  known  as  one  of  our  Lord's  disciples.  The 
great  difficulty  about  the  passage  is  that  its  language 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    MARK 


33 


is  very  different  from  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Gospel, 
and  also  that  the  ninth  verse  does  not  run  on  con- 
nectedly with  the  eighth.  For  one  thing,  it  speaks 
of  Mary  Magdalen  as  a  new  person,  though  she  has 
already  been  introduced  in  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter. 
This  short  summary  of  post-resurrection  events  was 
probably  added  early  to  give  a  conclusion  to  the 
Gospel.  Some  writers  think  that  we  have  a  version 
of  the  original  conclusion  of  Mark  in  the  last  chapter 
of  John,  for  it  is  clear  from  the  seventh  verse,  as  well 
as  from  xiv.  28,  that  the  original  conclusion  of  Mark 
would  have  dealt  with  appearances  in  Galilee,  and 
not  in  Jerusalem.  (3)  In  four  MSS.  and  in  certain 
versions  there  is  another  ending  still  further  removed 
in  style  from  the  rest  of  the  Gospel,  and  it  was  most 
probably  the  work  of  a  scribe,  either  Latin  or  Egyptian. 
It  runs  as  follows  :  "  And  they  immediately  made 
known  all  things  that  had  been  commanded  them  to 
those  about  Peter.  And  after  this  Jesus  Himself 
appeared,  and  sent  out  by  means  of  them  from  the 
East  even  to  the  West  the  holy  and  incorruptible 
preaching  of  the  eternal  Gospel."  (4)  The  most 
recently  discovered  MS.  of  the  Gospels  is  that  known 
as  the  Detroit  or  Freer  MS.  found  in  Egypt  in  1907, 


34     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  dating  either  from  the  fourth  or  fifth  centuries. 
It  contains  the  ending  of  Mark  that  is  found  in  our 
version,  but  has  in  addition  three  verses  between  our 
14th  and  15th,  which  read  as  follows,  according 
to  the  translation  of  Professor  Swete :  "  And  they 
excused  themselves,  saj'ing,  This  world  of  iniquity  and 
of  unbelief  is  under  Satan,  who  by  reason  of  unclean 
spirits  sufifereth  not  men  to  comprehend  the  true  power 
of  God.  Therefore,  reveal  Thy  righteousness  now. 
And  Christ  answered  them,  The  term  of  years  of  the 
power  of  Satan  is  fulfilled,  but  other  dangers  are  nigh 
at  hand.  And  for  them  that  sin  I  was  delivered  unto 
death,  that  they  might  return  to  the  truth,  and  sin 
no  more;  that  they  might  inherit  the  spiritual  and  in- 
corruptible glory  of  righteousness  which  is  in  heaven." 
This  was  only  known  elsewhere  in  a  Latin  quotation 
of  part  of  the  passage  in  a  work  of  Jerome.  What  its 
origin  may  be  is  not  clear,  but  its  great  interest  is  that 
it  gives  us  a  saying  of  Jesus  not  otherwise  known. 
The  result  of  these  investigations  is  to  show  that  at  pre- 
sent we  have  no  real  conclusion  to  Mark's  Gospel,  and 
must  wait  in  hope  that  some  day  a  MS.  may  be  dis- 
covered that  contains  the  original  ending,  if  it  was  not 
lost  irreparably  in  the  early  days  of  the  second  century. 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    MARK  35 

The  important  question  of  the  exact  relation  of  Mark 
to  the  two  other  synoptics  must  now  be  considered, 
and  it  is  one  of  great  difficulty.  The  proof  of  the 
employment  of  Mark  by  Matthew  and  Luke  depends 
very  largely  for  its  validity  upon  points  of  minute  detail 
that  are  not  easily  set  forth  in  the  short  space  here 
available,  and  many  of  them  are  only  clear  to  readers  of 
the  original,  because  they  consist  largely  of  alterations 
of  Greek  expressions  from  the  more  colloquial  form  of 
Mark  to  the  more  polished  Greek  of  the  other  writers. 
Two  classes  of  alteration  may  be  given  as  examples  : 
(i)  Where  Mark  uses  Latin  words  or  titles,  the  other 
evangelists  either  omit  them  or  put  Greek  ones  in  their 
place;  and  (2)  where  Mark  uses  popular  language  in  the 
description  of  diseases,  Luke  alters  to  technically  accurate 
medical  language.  In  many  cases  it  has  been  noted 
that  where  Mark  uses  language  that  might  be  supposed 
to  be  derogatory  to  Jesus,  or  the  cause  of  offence  or 
difficulty  to  the  reader,  the  other  evangelists  have 
softened  it  down — e.g.  in  Mark  vi.  5  we  read,  "  He  could 
there  do  no  mighty  work ; "  but  in  Matt.  xiii.  58  it  reads, 
"He  did  not  many  mighty  works  there."  In  Mark 
iii.  5,  *'  with  anger  "  is  omitted  by  the  others,  so  also  in 
ver.  21  of  the  same  chapter  the  statement,  "  He  is  beside 


36     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

himself,"  is  omitted.  Only  in  Mark  vi.  3  is  Jesus  called 
"the  Carpenter."  In  Mark  ii.  26  the  historical  inac- 
curacy contained  in  the  words,  **  when  Abiathar  was  high 
priest,"  is  not  found  in  the  other  evangelists.  For 
further  details  reference  must  be  made  to  the  larger 
commentaries  and  dictionary  articles.  Many  have 
argued  that  some  of  the  differences  are  to  be  accounted 
for  by  the  fact  that  two  or  even  three  editions  of  Mark's 
Gospel  were  in  existence.  Some  think  that  one  edition 
was  used  by  Matthew  and.  another  by  Luke.  Some 
hold  that  our  present  Mark  is  one  of  these  revised 
editions,  while  others  consider  it,  with  more  probability, 
to  be  the  original  form.  These  theories  are  rather  too 
complicated  to  be  probable,  and  we  may  take  it  that  the 
Mark  that  we  possess  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  the 
same  document  that  was  employed  by  Matthew  and 
Luke. 

A  further  question  arises  as  to  whether  Mark  himself 
employed  other  written  documents.  The  present  writer 
is  inclined  to  think  that  he  did,  though  not  perhaps  the 
same  Logia  that  were  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  The 
thirteenth  chapter  was  most  likely  a  separate  document, 
and  the  same  may  be  true  of  the  various  parables  re- 
corded   in    the    Gospel.      It    is    further    a    reasonable 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    MARK  37 

assumption  that  chap.  viii.  1-26  is  an  earlier  account  of 
the  events  recorded  in  another  and  more  extended  form 
in  chaps,  vi.  30  to  vii.  37.  If  this  latter  supposition  is 
correct,  the  passage  in  the  eighth  chapter  would  then  be 
one  of  the  original  sources  which  lay  behind  the  com- 
plete Mark,  and  which  by  good  fortune  has  been  em- 
bedded in  it,  telling  its  tale  as  clearly  as  does  an  erratic 
boulder  in  the  midst  of  an  entirely  different  geological 
formation. 

The  point  of  view  of  the  Gospel  may  be  given  in  the 
words  of  Paul.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  "  the  Son  of  God 
with  power."  Jesus  is  represented  throughout  as  the 
worker  of  miracles,  the  healer  and  the  Saviour  of  men ; 
but  while  this  is  true,  there  is  no  Gospel  that  more 
clearly  describes  Him  in  His  most  truly  human  nature, 
and,  indeed,  lays  such  stress  upon  His  human  charac- 
teristics that,  as  we  have  found,  the  other  evangelists 
soften  many  of  them  down.  In  chap.  xiii.  32,  Mark 
records  the  one  known  instance  of  our  Lord's  confession 
of  ignorance.  The  writer  was  evidently  keeping  in  view, 
all  through.  Gentile  readers,  since  he  explains  Jewish  cus- 
toms, language,  and  even  topography  (see  chaps,  vii.  2  ; 
XV.  42  ;  xiii.  3). 

As  to  the  date  of  its  writing,  the  main  internal  evidences 


38     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

are  in  the  discourse  inchap.xiii.,  which  seems  to  be  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  though,  of  course, 
if  one  is  right  in  supposing  it  to  be  an  earHer  document 
embodied  in  the  Gospel,  it  would  not  necessarily  point 
to  the  date  of  the  whole  work.  The  words  in  chap.  ii. 
26,  "  it  is  not  lawful,"  seem  to  point  to  the  existence  of 
the  Temple  at  the  moment  when  they  were  written. 
Further,  if  it  is  one  of  the  basal  documents  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  it  must  have  been  written  before  them,  and 
we  cannot  place  Luke  very  late  if  we  accept  his  author- 
ship of  Acts.  These  indications,  therefore,  seem  to 
point  to  about  the  year  70  as  the  most  probable  date 
of  the  work. 

Person  of  Writer. — Of  Mark  himself  we  know  practi- 
cally nothing  beyond  what  the  New  Testament  tells  us 
in  the  references  in  Acts,  certain  of  Paul's  Epistles,  and 
I.  Peter.  The  idea  that  the  author  himself  appears  as 
the  young  man  (chap.  xiv.  51,  52)  is  contradicted  by  the 
statement  of  Papias  that  he  neither  heard  the  Lord  nor 
accompanied  Him.  His  close  connection  with  Barnabas 
is  an  interesting  circumstance  in  the  history  of  the  early 
Church,  and  it  is  not  without  significance  to  think  that 
in  this  Gospel  we  may  have  quite  as  much  of  the  echo 
and  tone  of  Barnabas's  mission  preaching  as  we  have  of 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    LUKE  39 

that  of  Peter.  The  connection  between  Peter's  speeches 
in  Acts  and  the  simple  form  of  the  Marcan  doctrine  of 
the  person  of  Christ  is  also  worthy  of  study.  Two 
points  are  noteworthy  in  Christian  tradition  about  Mark, 
though  it  is  difficult  to  attach  great  importance  to  either 
of  them.  The  one  connects  him  with  a  mission  in 
Egypt,  and  particularly  in  Alexandria,  while  another  tells 
us  that  he  was  known  as  the  man  with  the  maimed  hand, 
which  may,  indeed,  be  a  true  statement  about  him,  as  it 
is  just  such  physical  peculiarities  that  often  linger  as  the 
truthful  portion  of  otherwise  worthless  tradition. 


THE    GOSPEL   OF    LUKE 

The  Historian. — The  third  Gospel  begins  in  a  way 
unique  among  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
for  the  writer  gives  us  at  the  outset  some  account  of 
the  methods  he  has  employed  in  preparing  his  work. 
The  familiar  and  famous  words  may  as  well  be  quoted 
here :  "  Forasmuch,"  he  says,  "  as  many  have  taken  in 
hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  concerning  those  matters 
which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us,  even  as  they  de- 
livered them  unto  us,  which  from  the  beginning  were 
eye-witnesses   and   ministers    of    the   word,    it   seemed 


40     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

good  to  me  also,  having  traced  the  course  of  all  things 
accurately  from  the  first,  to  write  unto  thee  in  order, 
most  excellent  Theophilus,  that  thou  mightest  know 
the  certainty  concerning  the  things  wherein  thou  wast 
instructed."  These  words  reveal  to  us  that  the  writer 
was  familiar  with  numerous  accounts,  presumably  written 
documents,  based  upon  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses 
and  missionaries,  and  that  he  had  carefully  examined 
all  these  in  order  to  form  from  them  a  more  full  and 
authentic  narrative  than  any  known  to  him.  This  at 
once  places  the  Gospel  in  a  position  of  prominence 
amongst  its  fellows,  and  marks  it  out  as  of  special 
value.  If  we  are  right  in  the  conclusions  already 
arrived  at,  then  we  know  at  least  two  of  these  narra- 
tives, namely,  Mark  and  the  collection  of  teachings 
common  to  Matthew  and  Luke.  This  Gospel,  there- 
fore, while  it  necessarily  throws  great  light  upon  the 
synoptic  problem,  also  contributes  its  own  elements 
of  difficulty  to  that  problem.  It  is  clear  at  the  outset 
that  the  general  order  of  the  Gospel  is  determined  by 
that  of  Mark,  for  when  at  chap.  ix.  50  he  leaves 
Mark's  Gospel  in  order  to  insert  a  long  section,  largely 
peculiar  to  himself,  up  till  xviii.  14,  at  the  15th  verse 
of  the  latter  chapter  he  returns  to  Mark  again  at  x.  13 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    LUKE  41 

of  the   latter  book,  and  follows   his  order  closely  to 
the  end. 

His  Sources. — When  we  turn  to  the  second  source, 
namely,  the  collection  of  sayings,  we  find  that  Luke 
treats  them  in  quite  a  different  way  from  Matthew. 
The  latter,  as  we  saw,  delights  in  lengthy  combina- 
tions of  teaching,  whereas  Luke  has,  as  a  rule,  much 
shorter  connected  passages,  and  does  his  utmost  to 
give  the  teaching  in  the  circumstances  that  either  seem 
to  him  appropriate,  or  that  may  have  been  indicated 
as  the  proper  settings  for  them  in  the  sources  that 
were  open  to  him.  Two  points  are  noteworthy.  First, 
that  sometimes,  as  in  chaps,  xv.  and  xvi.,  Luke  masses 
together  parables  without  more  than  such  introductory 
words  as  "and  he  said,"  or  "and  he  spake  unto  them 
this  parable,"  or  even,  as  in  xvi.  19,  without  any 
introductory  formula  whatever.  In  the  whole  of  the 
section  above  referred  to  as  peculiar  to  Luke's  Gospel, 
this  method  is  very  noticeable.  It  reminds  us  of  a 
form  in  which  some  of  the  Logia  have  been  recently 
discovered  in  the  Egyptian  papyri,  and  it  may  indicate 
that  Luke  found  these  stories  in  a  collection  that  had 
no  indication  of  time  and  place  at  all,  and  that  he 
simply  arranges  them  according  to  his  own  judgment, 


42     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

in  what  appeared  to  him  to  be  the  most  suitable 
manner.  For  example,  in  xvi.  13  we  have  a  saying 
which  appears  in  Matthew  vi.  24  obviously  not  closely 
connected  with  the  context,  so  set  by  Luke  that  it 
finds  the  clearest  of  illustrations  in  the  parable  that 
precedes  it.  An  interesting  study  is  to  make  a  careful 
examination  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  recorded 
by  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  to  endeavour  to  discover 
reasons  for  the  contexts  in  which  Luke  places  the 
various  sayings.  Again,  Luke's  arrangement  of  the 
discourses  on  the  last  things,  and  on  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem,  gain  greatly  in  clearness  and  significance 
by  their  setting.  {Cf.  Luke  xvii.  20-37  and  xxi.  5-38 
with  Matthew  xxiv.)  Dr.  Wright  notes  a  very  in- 
teresting example  of  Luke's  method  in  the  case  of 
xi.  9  compared  with  Matthew  vii.  7,  and  in  answer 
to  the  question  why  the  change  has  taken  place, 
says  :  "  The  words  '  pray '  or  '  prayer '  do  not  occur 
in  it,  and  the  redactor  of  St.  Matthew,  acting,  as  we 
are  all  liable  to  do,  mechanically,  did  not  perceive 
that  this  Logion  dealt  with  prayer.  St.  Luke  was  more 
observant." 

It  seems  impossible  to  come  to  any  conclusion  as  to 
what  were  the  sources  of  the  large  amount  of  material 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    LUKE  43 

that  is  peculiar  to  Luke,  especially  the  numerous  lovely 
parables  in  which  his  Gospel  abounds.  They  constitute, 
as  Dr.  Wright  says,  "  the  very  cream  of  the  Gospel,"  and 
yet  it  is  from  him  alone  that  we  know  them.  Many  have 
seen  in  the  tone  of  these  parables,  and  in  the  general 
catholicity  of  Luke's  attitude,  the  influence  of  Paul ;  but 
we  can  hardly  suppose  that  Paul  had  access  to  any 
sources  of  Gospel  history  that  were  not  known  to  Luke. 
A  most  fascinating  theory,  and  one  that  has  much  pro- 
bability about  it,  is  that  of  Dr.  Salmon,  who  thinks  that 
Luke's  Gospel,  especially  in  its  peculiar  elements,  is 
derived  from  the  form  of  mission  preaching  that  was 
familiar  to  the  Church  at  Antioch.  That  Church,  it  will 
be  remembered,  was  the  first  to  send  out  missionaries  to 
the  Gentiles,  and  the  type  of  peculiarly  Lucan  teaching 
is,  therefore,  most  appropriate  to  the  community. 

Harnack  thinks  that  much  of  the  Lucan  material  is 
derived  from  the  narrative  of  Philip  the  Evangelist,  of 
whose  value  as  a  historian  he  does  not  entertain  the 
very  highest  opinion.  The  infancy  and  resurrection 
narratives  probably  represent  different  and  independent 
sources.  The  former  show  a  strongly  Aramaic  influence, 
and  Sanday  is  inclined  to  regard  them  as  the  most 
primitive  section  of  all  the   New  Testament  writings. 


44     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Others  suppose  that  Luke  has  himself  written  them  in 
an  archaic  style  in  order  to  suit  the  special  circumstances 
they  describe.  What  seems  very  certain  is  that  the 
beautiful  and  well-known  poems  in  the  section  are  the 
productions  of  conscious  art,  and  not  the  extempore 
product  even  of  inspired  imagination.  This  is  obvious 
to  any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  the 
poems  with  their  Old  Testament  models.  The  resur- 
rection narratives  show  a  knowledge  only  of  the  Jeru- 
salem tradition,  and  have  no  hint  of  appearances  in 
Galilee. 

There  is  one  noteworthy  feature  in  the  Gospel  which 
may  have  a  certain  bearing  upon  its  origin,  namely,  the 
prominence  throughout  it  of  the  feminine  element.  We 
are  told  more  about  women  than  in  any  of  the  other 
Gospels,  though  John's  Gospel  comes  nearest  to  it,  this 
being  one  of  several  points  of  resemblance  between 
Luke  and  John.  The  following  are  some  of  the  most 
important  occasions  on  which  women  are  named  :  the 
stories  about  Elizabeth,  Anna,  the  sisters  of  Bethany, 
the  daughters  of  Jerusalem,  the  woman  who  was  a 
sinner,  and  the  woman  named  in  viii.  i  ;  as  also  in  the 
following  parables:  the  widow  and  the  unjust  judge, 
and  the  woman  with  the  lost  piece  of  silver.     Harnack 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    LUKE  45 

points  to  Philip's  daughters  as  the  most  probable  sources 
of  this  pecuHar  element. 

Of  Luke  himself  we  do  not  know  a  great  deal  directly 
in  the  New  Testament.  Most  of  our  information  is 
inferential.  The  name  seems  to  be  one  of  a  class  of 
pet  names  which  are  common  in  the  period,  it  being 
evidently  a  contraction  of  Lucanus.  We  do  not  even 
know  his  birthplace,  tradition  mentioning  Antioch, 
which  many  follow  on  grounds  of  probability,  but 
Ramsay  and  others  think  he  was  a  Macedonian,  and 
probably  a  native  of  Philippi,  basing  the  theory  upon 
the  circumstances  of  his  first  appearance  in  Acts  {cf.  xvi. 
9,  lo).  He  was  evidently  a  Gentile  who  came  into  con- 
tact and  close  sympathy  with  Jews.  It  is  noticed  that 
his  adherence  to  the  language  of  the  Septuagint  is  closer 
than  that  of  the  other  evangelists,  while  his  Greek  is  that 
of  the  cultured  man  of  the  time.  A  very  special  feature 
of  his  language  is  its  medical  character.  Over  and  over 
again  we  find  technical  medical  terms  employed  where 
the  other  evangelists  have  either  no  equivalent  or  use  the 
popular  terms  of  common  speech,  and  in  other  instances 
he  will  use  a  medical  word  where  the  other  writers  use  a 
common  one — e.g.  in  the  saying  about  the  eye  of  a 
needle,   Luke's  word  is  that  employed  by  the  medical 


46     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

writers  for  a  surgical  needle.  He  alone  it  is  who  quotes 
the  medical  proverb,  "  Physician,  heal  thyself,"  and  who 
in  the  case  of  the  woman  healed  on  the  way  to  the  house 
of  Jairus,  omits  the  harsher  words  used  of  physicians  in 
Mark's  Gospel.  (For  a  full  treatment  of  the  subject  see 
App.  I.  in  Harnack's  "  Luke  the  Physician.")  It  is  just 
possible  that  he  may  have  studied  at  Tarsus,  which  was 
Paul's  university,  and  that  they  may  have  met  there. 
That  is  at  least  a  feasible  alternative  to  the  Macedonian 
theory.  Professor  Souter  thinks  that  Titus  was  Luke's 
brother  (see  II.  Cor.  xii.  i8,  which  he  would  translate 
"his  brother"). 

Date. — Apparently  the  Lucan  version  of  our  Lord's 
words  about  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  was  written  after 
the  event  had  taken  place,  and  in  full  knowledge  of 
the  facts  about  its  siege  by  the  Romans,  so  that  the 
Gospel  probably  was  not  written  earlier  than  75  ;  and 
in  order  to  allow  time  for  the  writing  of  Acts,  it  is 
not  likely  that  it  was  written  any  later  than  80. 

The  point  of  view  of  the  Gospel  is  more  catholic 
and  universal  than  that  of  either  Mark  or  Matthew. 
The  genealogy  he  preserves  when  compared  with  that 
in  Matthew  shows  this  point  of  view  very  clearly,  for 
he  makes  Jesus  there  the  representative  of  the  human 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    JOHN  47 

race  in  its  Divine  descent ;  and  all  through  the  position 
of  the  writer  is  that  of  one  who  emphasises  the  sym- 
pathy of  Jesus  for  men  as  men,  for  the  sinful  as 
sinners,  and  his  delineation  of  salvation  is  that  of  its 
world-wide  efficacy. 


THE    GOSPEL    OF   JOHN 

When  we  turn  to  this,  the  greatest  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  we  are  beset  with  almost 
countless  difficulties.  If  we  read  the  book  without 
further  question  mainly  as  a  wonderful  spiritual  inter- 
pretation of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  we  are 
impressed  afresh  on  every  new  reading  by  its  beauty 
and  its  power;  but  when  we  go  further  and  raise  the 
many  questions  that  such  reading  necessarily  implies 
in  the  mind  of  the  student,  we  find  ourselves  faced 
by  enormous  difficulties.  From  the  earliest  times  some 
of  these  have  been  felt,  and  in  our  own  day  a  closer 
investigation  and  recent  discoveries  have  only  em- 
phasised them,  and  done  comparatively  little  toward 
their  solution. 

The  first  question  is,  What  John  wrote  the  book? 
Early    testimony    is   not    so    unanimous,    as    is    often 


48     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

supposed,  in  saying  that  it  was  John  the  Apostle.  In 
fact,  it  is  very  remarkable  that  none  of  the  early 
writers  actually  call  him  Apostle.  The  testimony  of 
the  earliest  writings  outside  the  New  Testament — e.g. 
Didymus,  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  Clement — are,  as 
we  have  already  found  in  other  cases,  quite  indefinite. 
The  Epistle  of  Polycarp  has  close  verbal  resemblances 
in  various  passages  to  the  language  of  this  Gospel, 
and  in  one  place  seems  almost  certainly  to  quote  the 
First  Epistle  of  John,  but  there  is  not  any  direct 
quotation,  nor,  of  course,  any  reference  to  the  author 
of  the  work.  Irenseus  tells  us  that  Polycarp  was 
an  associate  of  those  who  had  seen  Christ,  and  had 
himself  had  personal  intercourse  with  John,  the  disciple 
of  the  Lord.  There  is  little  doubt  that  in  his  own 
mind  Irenseus  identifies  this  John  with  the  Apostle, 
though  he  does  not  say  so  in  so  many  words.  It  is 
quite  possible,  however,  that  as  Irenasus  was  a  boy 
when  he  met  Polycarp,  he  may  have  confused  a  more 
famous  with  a  less  famous  John,  and  the  person  to 
whom  Polycarp  referred  may  have  been  that  John  of 
Ephesus  of  whom  we  shall  hear  more  presently. 

In  the  writings  of  Ignatius  there  are  several  clear 
affinities    with    the    language    of    John's    Gospel,    and 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    JOHN  49 

in  one  passage  (Rom.  vii.  2)  an  almost  certain  refer- 
ence to  the  story  of  the  woman  of  Samaria,  but  in  no 
case  does  he  exactly  quote  the  words  of  the  Gospel, 
nor  does  he  ever  name  either  it  or  its  author.  This  is 
the  more  remarkable,  seeing  that  he  himself  writes 
a  letter  to  the  Ephesian  Church  in  which  he  men- 
tions Paul,  but  not  John.  All  that  can  be  fairly 
inferred,  therefore,  from  his  writings  is  a  knowledge 
of  the  type  of  teaching  contained  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 
With  Papias  we  are  in  a  different  position,  and  one 
of  his  statements,  preserved  by  Eusebius,  constitutes 
one  of  the  great  grounds  of  controversy.  He  tells  us 
that  when  he  met  any  one  who  had  attended  the  elders, 
he  used  to  inquire  about  the  words  of  the  latter, 
"what  Andrew  or  what  Peter  said,  or  what  Philip, 
or  what  Thomas  or  James  or  John  or  Matthew  or 
any  other  of  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  said,  and  what 
Aristion  and  the  elder  John,  disciples  of  the  Lord, 
say.  For  I  was  not  inchned  to  suppose  that  state- 
ments made  by  the  book  would  help  me  so  much  as 
the  utterances  of  a  living  and  abiding  voice."  The 
most  obvious  interpretation  of  these  words  is  that  Papias 
himself  was  in  a  position  to  make  inquiries  from  the 
elder  John,  while  the  former  John  of  whom  he  speaks 


so     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

had  already  died.  It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  passage  bearing  on  the  Gospel,  but  we  do 
have  evidence  of  the  way  in  which  such  writers  as 
Irenseus  and  Eusebius  understood  the  evidence  of 
Papias;  but  this  does  not  clearly  point  to  a  definite 
statement  that  the  latter  attributed  the  Gospel  to  the 
Apostle,  and  two  recently  discovered  fragments  of  the 
writings  of  Papias  state  that  James  and  John  both  died 
at  the  hands  of  the  Jews.  Some  have  thrown  doubt 
upon  these  fragments,  but  even  if  they  are  authentic, 
it  is  not  proved  that  they  both  died  together,  and  it 
would  not  in  itself  make  it  impossible  that  John  the 
Apostle  might  have  suffered  at  Ephesus,  though  certainly 
it  would  in  that  case  be  very  unlikely.  Justin  Martyr 
shows  evidence  of  knowledge  of  Johannine  language, 
but  not  definitely  of  quotation.  It  is  held  that  his 
use  of  the  term  "Apostles,"  as  the  authors  of  the 
Memoirs  of  the  Lord  to  which  he  frequently  refers, 
must  imply  his  knowledge  of  Matthew  and  John.  His 
thought  and  language  also  are  often  similar  to  that 
of  the  fourth  Gospel,  but,  again,  this  may  only  be 
due  to  his  familiarity  with  that  type  of  teaching.  The 
Mur.  Fragment,  Clement,  Alexander,  and  Irenaeus 
definitely  attribute  the  work  to  John.     The  words  of 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    JOHN  51 

the  latter  writer  are,  "  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord, 
who  leaned  upon  His  breast,  wrote  it  while  dwell- 
ing in  Ephesus,  the  city  of  Asia."  These  words  have 
been  generally  taken  to  mean  that  Irenseus  identified 
the  writer  with  the  Apostle,  but  it  is  not  absolutely 
essential  to  say  that  if,  as  we  shall  see,  the  "beloved 
disciple  "  may  not  have  been  the  Apostle. 

The  evidence  of  the  use  of  the  book  by  the  heretical 
sects  of  the  second  century  is  a  very  difficult  and  in- 
tricate subject,  and  cannot  here  be  entered  upon. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  among  many  of  them  this  Gospel 
seems  to  have  been  familiar,  and  that,  therefore,  its  wide- 
spread use  in  the  middle  of  the  century  is  pretty  clear, 
as  is  also  evidenced  by  the  harmony  of  Tatian.  The 
result  of  the  external  evidence  may,  therefore,  be  briefly 
summarised  as  follows:  (i)  The  Gospel  was  in  exist- 
ence early  in  the  second  century ;  (2)  it  was  attributed 
to  a  John  of  Ephesus ;  (3)  its  author  was  not  definitely 
identified  with  the  Apostle  until  the  end  of  the  second 
century. 

Where  external  evidence  is  not  regarded  as  quite 
satisfactory,  it  is  customary  to  refer  to  the  internal 
evidence  as  being  beyond  dispute  a  proof  of  apostolic 
authorship,  and  the  evidence  is  usually  given  in  four 


52     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

concentric  circles  as  follows:  (i)  The  author  was  a 
Jew,  which  is  proved  by  his  frequent  references  to  Old 
Testament  prophecy  {cf.  xii.  37 ;  xix.  24,  28)  and  his 
intimate  familiarity  with  Jewish  manners  and  customs. 
(2)  He  is  a  Jew  of  Palestine.  This  is  proved  by  the 
intimate  knowledge  of  topographical  details.  Such  is 
his  distinction  between  the  two  Bethanys,  his  intimate 
knowledge  of  Jerusalem  and  its  environs,  &c.  (3)  That 
he  is  a  contemporary  and  eye-witness.  This  is  proved 
by  his  familiarity  with  the  attitude  of  the  religious  parties 
in  Judaea,  and  also  in  his  clear  interpretation  of  the  mind 
of  the  people,  as  well  as  in  his  portraits  of  individuals 
like  Nicodemus  and  Caiaphas.  (4)  His  intimate  associ- 
ation with  Jesus  and  the  other  Apostles  proves  him  to 
have  been  an  Apostle  himself.  He  is  certainly  described 
in  the  book  (see  xii.  23;  xix.  26)  as  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved,  and  he  is  intimate  with  such  mem- 
bers of  the  twelve  as  Philip,  Andrew,  Thomas,  and 
Judas.  His  interpretation  of  his  Lord's  inward  feelings 
is  very  close  and  constant,  and  if  he  be  not  himself  the 
John  of  the  apostolic  band,  he  never  mentions  the 
latter.  In  the  other  Gospels  Peter  and  John  are  often 
closely  united,  and  in  this  Gospel  the  unnamed  disciple 
and  Peter  are  shown  as  close  friends,     Delff  has  sug- 


THE    GOSPEL    OF   JOHN  53 

gested  that  the  beloved  disciple  may  have  been  a  man 
of  high  priestly  family,  a  native  of  Jerusalem,  intimately 
associated  with  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles,  permitted  to 
be  present  at  the  Last  Supper,  and  on  other  occasions,  but 
not  himself  an  Apostle.  This  theory  has  great  difficulties, 
but  it  is  not  impossible,  and  this  disciple  may  himself 
have  become  known  at  a  later  time  as  John  of  Ephesus. 
One  of  the  great  difficulties  that  attaches  to  the  Gospel 
is  its  relation  to  the  synoptics.  At  first  glance  it  is 
obvious  how  little  they  have  in  common,  and  how  many 
most  important  incidents  in  the  latter — e.g.  the  Tempta- 
tion, Transfiguration,  Agony,  Lord's  Supper,  &c. — are 
wanting  in  the  pages  of  John.  Very  slight  account  is 
given  in  the  latter  of  the  ministry  in  Galilee,  which 
occupies  so  large  a  place  in  the  synoptic  narratives. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  important  place  assigned  to  the 
raising  of  Lazarus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  makes  it  difficult 
to  understand  why  there  should  be  no  mention  of  the 
event  in  the  synoptics.  The  well-known  difficulty 
about  the  date  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  another  marked 
point  of  divergence.  John  says  it  took  place  before  the 
Feast  of  the  Passover.  With  the  synoptics  it  took  place 
on  the  first  day  of  the  feast.  The  problem  cannot  be 
discussed  here,  but  it  is  a  very  vital  point  in  the  whole 


54     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

question  of  the  relationship  between  the  two  forms  of 
the  story. 

A  further  noteworthy  distinction  lies  in  the  form  of 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  given  in  the  synoptics,  and  in 
John.  This  does  not  lie  so  much  in  the  mere  length 
of  the  discourses,  for  Drummond  has  shown  that  the 
longest  single  discourses  are  contained  in  Matthew,  and 
also  that  there  are  quite  as  many  short  aphoristic  sayings 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  as  in  the  synoptics,  but  the 
character  of  the  teaching  is  certainly  different.  There 
are  no  parables  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  all  through 
the  latter  Jesus  speaks  of  Himself  and  of  the  nature  of 
His  person  in  a  way  that  is  rarely  paralleled  in  the 
other  Gospels.  There  is,  of  course,  one  striking  passage 
in  the  end  of  chapter  xi.  in  Matthew  which  has  much 
affinity  with  the  form  of  His  utterances  in  John,  and 
there  are  many  other  points  of  contact,  such  as  the 
teaching  on  the  new  birth  given  to  Nicodemus,  when 
compared  with  the  well-known  sayings  in  the  synoptics, 
"  Except  ye  turn,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall 
not  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  ^  In  the  main,  how- 
ever, the  style  of  the  discourses  in  John  are  not  only 
very  different  from  those  elsewhere  recorded,  but  are  so 
^  See  Appendix. 


THE    GOSPEL    OF   JOHN  55 

obviously  coloured  by  the  form  of  expression  used  by 
the  writer  himself  in  his  narrative  and  reflective  passages, 
that  it  is  sometimes  impossible  to  tell  where  the  words 
of  Jesus  end  and  the  words  of  the  evangelist  begin  {cf. 
iii.  12-21).  The  prayer  recorded  in  chapter  xvii.  is 
another  good  example,  for  not  only  is  such  a  form  of 
expression  as  that  employed  in  the  third  verse  practi- 
cally inconceivable  as  being  used  by  our  Lord  Himself, 
but  the  whole  report  of  the  prayer,  unless  we  could 
conceive  it  to  be  given  with  perfect  verbal  accuracy, 
conveys  the  impression  of  an  artistic  production  of  the 
writer,  embodying  no  doubt  echoes  of  what  he  had 
heard  from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  but  constituting  in  its 
present  form  an  ideal  prayer  of  self-consecration  and 
intercession  for  His  disciples. 

Further,  the  way  in  which  the  Jews  are  spoken  of 
throughout  the  book  is  quite  different  from  anything 
found  in  the  synoptics.  Severe  things  are  said  of 
sections  of  the  community,  such  as  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  in  Matthew  xxiii.  and  elsewhere,  but  never 
do  we  find  the  whole  community  of  the  people  classed 
as  enemies  of  our  Lord  and  His  work.  The  language 
used  is  even  more  severe  than  that  employed  by  Paul, 
when   in  Galatians  and  elsewhere  he   deals   with   the 


56     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

errors  of  the  Jewish  party.  The  manner  in  which 
John  the  Baptist  and  his  teaching  is  spoken  of  also 
reveals  the  atmosphere  of  controversy,  suggesting  that 
his  influence  and  the  school  he  had  formed  is  re- 
garded by  the  writer  as  a  serious  rival  to  the  work  of 
Jesus.  A  further  polemical  aim  is  found  in  the  under- 
lying consciousness  all  the  way  through  the  Gospel 
that  the  writer  is  aware  of  the  growing  power  of  certain 
interpreters  of  Christianity,  who  became  known  later 
as  the  Gnostics.  The  Gospel  lays  much  stress  upon 
Christ  as  the  one  agent  in  all  creation,  and  upon  God 
His  Father  being  the  same  God  that  was  known  to 
Abraham,  and  upon  sonship  of  God  being  only  possible 
through  Jesus  Christ.  It  has  been  further  pointed 
out  that  the  writer  carefully  avoids  using  the  technical 
terms  of  the  Gnostic  teaching.  The  points  noted 
above  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Gnostic  idea 
that  creation  was  accomplished  through  the  agency 
of  angels,  and  that  Divine  sonship  might  be  attained 
through  processes  of  intellectual  illumination.  The 
First  Epistle  of  John,  which  undoubtedly  stands  closely 
related  to  the  Gospel,  is  even  more  clearly  filled  with 
the  echo  of  this  controversy. 

Even  if  the  great  key-words   of  the  Gospel  were 


THE    GOSPEL    OF   JOHN  57 

not  struck  out  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  they  remain 
very  characteristic  of  the  writer's  method.  He  inter- 
prets the  Gospel  in  terms  of  light  and  darkness,  life 
and  death,  truth  and  falsehood,  and  other  similar 
terms.  This  gives  the  writing  a  unique  character, 
and  also  presents  the  Gospel  in  a  very  interesting 
and  striking  way ;  but  it  will  probably  never  be  pos- 
sible to  decide  how  far  this  is  due  to  his  own  mental 
attitude,  and  how  far  it  goes  back  upon  the  actual 
terminology  of  Jesus.  Another  characteristic  feature 
of  the  Gospel  is  its  use  of  significant  numbers.  The 
number  seven  occurs  in  various  connections — e.g.  in 
the  forms  of  Christ's  utterances  that  begin  with  the 
words  "  I  am,"  and  also  in  the  number  of  witnesses 
borne  to  Christ.  There  are  other  evidences  that  a 
symbolism  of  numbers  was  in  the  writer's  mind,  a 
method  which  was  probably  derived  from  the  Jewish 
school  at  Alexandria. 

The  German  writer,  Wendt,  whose  work  has  been 
translated  into  English,  under  the  title  "The  Gospel 
according  to  St.  John,"  maintains  the  theory  that  the 
fourth  Gospel,  like  the  synoptics,  is  also  dependent 
upon  original  written  sources,  which  were  afterwards 
worked  up  by  the  final   editor.     He  thinks  that   the 


58     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

discourses  are  drawn  from  an  older  document,  and 
that  the  narrative  portions  are  due  to  the  later  writer. 
In  the  discourses  he  finds  an  independent  series  of 
Logia  which  may  be  ultimately  derivable  from  the 
Apostle  John,  just  as  those  in  the  first  Gospel  may 
well  owe  their  origin  to  the  Apostle  Matthew.  He 
shows  with  great  skill  the  resemblances  that  these 
bear  to  the  synoptics,  though  he  is  inclined  to  think 
that  the  acquaintance  shown  with  the  latter  is  rather 
that  of  recollection  of  their  teaching  than  of  the  actual 
use  of  the  written  form  of  these  stories.  The  narra- 
tive sections,  the  editing  of  the  discourses,  and,  to 
a  great  extent,  the  language  in  which  the  latter  are 
couched,  are  in  the  main  due  to  the  writer.  This 
partition  theory  has  been  quite  recently  supported  in 
another  form  by  Wellhausen.  His  position  is  that 
the  Gospel  consists  of  two  main  documents,  the  earlier 
one  dependent  in  its  outUne  upon  Mark,  and  the 
later  one  in  many  ways  dependent  upon  Matthew. 
It  is  to  the  latter  that  the  majority  of  the  long  speeches 
and  dialogues  belong.  The  earlier  document  em- 
phasises the  historical  side,  and  the  latter  lays  more 
stress  upon  the  teaching.  The  theory  is  worked  out 
with  much  ingenuity,  and  some  of  its  detailed  analyses 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    JOHN  59 

certainly  help  to  remove  great  difficulties — e.g.  in  the 
sections  that  deal  with  our  Lord's  teaching  about  the 
Holy  Spirit,  where  every  reader  feels  the  difficulty  of 
distinguishing  between  the  passages  which  speak  of 
our  Lord's  personal  return,  and  those  which  describe 
the  ministry  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Wellhausen  is  able 
to  remove  all  confusion  by  attributing  one  form  of 
teaching  to  the  earlier  and  the  other  to  the  later 
source.  His  key-passage  is  chap.  vii.  3,  4,  which,  as 
he  says,  seems  to  take  it  for  granted  that  Jesus  had 
not  up  to  this  time  done  any  work  in  Jerusalem.  It 
seems  to  the  writer,  therefore,  that  these  verses  point 
to  another  tradition  with  which  the  main  part  of  the 
chapter  does  not  accord,  and  give  the  indication  that 
a  double  source  must  be  looked  for. 

There  are,  however,  great  difficulties  about  dividing 
what  has  been  called  the  "  seamless  robe  "  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  and  this  is  especially  the  case  if  we  regard  the 
prologue,  as  the  present  writer  does,  as  not  only  an 
essential  part  of  the  whole  book,  but  as  governing  in 
thought  and  expression  the  whole  of  the  work  to  which 
it  is  a  preface. 

It  will  be  clear  from  what  has  preceded  that  it  is  not 
an  easy  matter  to  fix  upon  a  definite  date  for  the  com- 


6o     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

position  of  the  Gospel,  but  in  all  likelihood  the  close  of 
the  first  century  is  as  probable  as  any  date  that  can  be 
named.  We  have  also  to  leave  in  abeyance  the  decision 
as  to  which  John  it  was  who  wrote  it.  One  is  some- 
times tempted  to  wonder  whether  John  Mark  himself 
might  not  have  been  the  author.  In  this  way,  perhaps, 
DelfFs  theory  might  be  reconciled  with  later  tradition. 
The  beloved  disciple  might  then  be  the  youth  who  fled 
from  the  capturers  of  Christ  on  the  night  of  the  betrayal, 
as  is  recorded  in  Mark's  Gospel.  The  idea  that  the 
twenty-first  chapter  of  John  represents  the  original  con- 
clusion of  Mark  is  a  very  attractive  one,  and  would  form 
another  link.  John  Mark  disappears  from  the  narrative 
of  the  New  Testament  after  his  departure  on  a  mission 
with  Barnabas,  save  for  one  or  two  casual  mentions  in 
the  epistles.  Tradition  tells  us  that  he  went  to  Alex- 
andria. Suppose  this  were  so,  that  at  Alexandria  he 
became  familiar  with  the  thought  of  Philo,  and  at  a 
later  time  settled  at  Ephesus,  and,  dissatisfied  with  his 
earlier  Gospel,  wrote  a  new  one,  which  interpreted  his 
great  Friend  and  Saviour  in  a  new  light,  we  might  have 
a  reason  for  the  comparative  neglect  and  the  obviously 
unfinished  condition  of  the  second  Gospel.  All  this  is 
admittedly  speculative,  but  in  present  conditions  there 


THE    GOSPEL    OF   JOHN  6i 

is  room  for  speculation,  and  it  is  not  more  improbable 
than  some  theories  that  have  been  formed  of  the  origin 
of  the  book. 

The  point  of  view  from  which  the  work  was  written 
has  been  generally  indicated,  and  the  name  by  which  it 
became  known  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
namely,  "the  spiritual  gospel,"  suits  it  well,  if  this  is 
not  understood  as  implying  an  adverse  judgment  as  to 
its  historical  value.  It  seems  likely  that  the  writer  felt 
the  great  danger  that  menaced  the  Church  from  the  idea 
prevalent  in  many  quarters,  that  our  Lord's  earthly  life 
was  not  that  of  a  real  man.  The  emphasis  laid  by  Paul 
upon  the  importance  of  the  risen  and  eternal  Christ  had 
by  some  been  so  misunderstood  as  to  cause  them  to 
think  that  the  story  of  His  humanity  mattered  little. 
This  writer  takes  as  his  thesis  the  idea  that  Christ 
*'  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  His 
glory."  The  central  idea  of  the  book  is  well  expressed 
in  the  well-known  lines  of  Browning's  poem,  "A  Death 
in  the  Desert " : — 

"  I  say,  the  acknowledgment  of  God  in  Christ 
Accepted  by  thy  reason,  solves  for  thee 
All  questions  in  the  earth  and  out  of  it, 
And  has  so  far  advanced  thee  to  be  wise." 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES 

The  opening  verses  of  this  book  claim  it  as  a  continua- 
tion of  the  third  Gospel,  and  there  are  many  features  of 
its  vocabulary  and  manner  of  treatment  which  support 
the  statement.  Much,  therefore,  which  has  been  said 
in  our  discussion  of  Luke's  Gospel  is  applicable  also  to 
this  book,  so  that  the  student  should  read  that  section 
before  continuing  the  present  chapter,  as  the  former 
material  will  be  taken  for  granted  in  the  following 
discussion. 

External  Evidence. — The  evidence  of  the  earliest 
writers  outside  the  New  Testament  is,  as  usual,  not  very 
conclusive  about  their  knowledge  of  Acts.  Clement  of 
Rome  has  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
same  form  and  order  in  which  they  appear  in  Acts,  but 
these  may  well  be  derived  from  some  well-known  collec- 
tion of  such  prophecies,  and  do  not  necessarily  show  a 

knowledge  of  this  work.     He  also  quotes  the  saying  of 

63 


THE   ACTS    OF   THE    APOSTLES     63 

Jesus  given  in  Acts  xx.  35,  but  this  also  may  be  derived 
from  some  other  tradition.  Neither  are  the  references 
in  Ignatius  or  Polycarp  conclusive  proof  that  these 
writers  knew  the  work.  In  the  first  apology  of  Justin 
Martyr,  chaps,  xlix.  and  1.,  there  are  references  to  the 
Apostles'  setting  out  from  Jerusalem  to  preach  the  Gospel 
to  the  Gentiles,  but  they  are  expressed  in  far  too  general 
language  to  say  that  they  show  more  than  acquaintance 
with  general  tradition.  In  a  letter  written  by  some 
Christians  in  Southern  Gaul  toward  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  there  seems  a  pretty  clear  reference  to  the  account 
in  Acts  of  Stephen's  martyrdom ;  and  the  legends  of 
Paul  and  Thecla,  which  also  date  from  the  second 
century,  are  pretty  certainly  derived  from  our  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  The  Mur.  Can.  recognises  it,  and  also 
contains  the  account  of  its  authorship  by  Luke.  Later 
authors  accept  it  definitely;  but  even  in  the  days  of 
Chrysostom,  that  great  preacher  tells  us  that  there  were 
many  ignorant,  not  only  of  its  authorship,  but  of  its 
existence. 

The  internal  evidence  of  the  book's  authorship  by 
Luke  is,  as  has  been  already  stated,  very  definite,  its 
own  statement  to  this  effect  being  supported  by  gram- 
matical usages  peculiar  to  this  work  and  to  the  third 


64     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Gospel.  In  it  also  are  found  in  many  places  the  same 
medical  vocabulary  that  is  a  feature  of  Luke's  earlier 
writing.  We  must  further  keep  in  mind  the  fact  that 
Luke  has  told  us  in  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  that  he 
knew  and  had  examined  various  earlier  accounts  of  the 
life  and  work  of  Jesus,  and  we  may  legitimately  suppose 
that  he  adopted  the  same  method  in  writing  his  later 
work.  If  we  may  assume  this,  we  shall  be  prepared  to 
find  traces  of  sources  in  this  book  also,  and  a  little 
examination  seems  to  make  these  evident.  The  first 
and  most  striking  one  is  what  is  called  by  various 
writers  "the  *We'  section,"  " the  travel  document,"  or 
"the  journey  record,"  which  consists  undoubtedly  of 
the  following  sections:  chaps,  xvi.  10-17;  xx.  5;  xxi. 
i8j  xxvii.  i;  xxviii.  16.  In  one  document,  the  Codex 
Bezae,  the  "We"  form  is  employed  at  xi.  28.  The 
natural  inference  from  the  form  of  expression  used  in 
these  sections  is  that  an  eye-witness  is  giving  an  account 
of  the  events  therein  recorded,  and  we  may  take  this  as 
a  basis  for  our  study  of  the  rest  of  the  book.  If  the 
language  used  in  these  passages  is  similar  to  that  em- 
ployed elsewhere,  we  are  justified  in  the  conclusion  that 
the  author  of  these  chapters  is  likewise  the  author  of 
the  rest  of  the  work,  and  a  careful  examination  of  the 


THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES     65 

whole  writing  justifies  the  position.  It  is  more  markedly 
true  of  the  second  part  of  the  book,  which  deals  with 
the  life  and  missionary  labours  of  Paul,  but  even  in  the 
earlier  section,  which  tells  the  story  of  the  early  days 
of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  various  missionary 
journeys  of  the  Apostles,  the  spe<;ial  marks  of  the  same 
writer  are  everywhere  apparent.  In  the  earlier  section, 
however,  there  are  many  passages  which  show  clear  traces 
of  their  separate  origin,  as  e.g.  the  speech  of  Stephen, 
the  narrative  of  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  addresses 
delivered  by  Peter  and  John.  Even  in  the  English 
translation  it  is  not  impossible  to  recognise  a  marked 
difference  of  language  between  these  and  the  rest  of 
the  narrative.  There  were  probably  separate  accounts 
of  the  work  of  Philip,  Peter,  and  Stephen  current  in  the 
early  Church,  and  parts  of  these  Luke  has  apparently 
embodied  in  his  completed  work. 

The  science  of  textual  criticism  has  an  important 
bearing  upon  this  book,  inasmuch  as  the  Codex  Bezae 
and  various  documents  that  are  closely  alHed  with  it 
have  preserved  a  text  that  differs  at  many  points  from 
the  ordinary  form  of  the  majority  of  documents.  This 
is  seen  mainly  in  numerous  additions  to  the  common 
text.     Sometimes  these  take   the   form   of   little    local 


66     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

touches,  as  e.g.  in  xii.  lo,  in  the  account  of  Peter's 
escape  from  prison,  where  we  are  told  that  he  and  the 
angel  "  went  down  the  seven  steps  " ;  or  in  xix.  9,  where 
we  are  informed  that  Paul  taught  daily  in  the  school  of 
Tyrannus  at  Ephesus,  "  from  the  fifth  to  the  tenth  hour." 
Sometimes  the  alteration  makes  an  obscure  passage 
clear,  as  in  xxi.  16,  where  the  reading  of  the  Codex 
Bezae  is  much  more  probable  than  the  ordinary  text. 
It  reads  at  the  place,  "and  passing  on  into  a  certain 
village  we  were  with  Mnason  of  Cyprus,  an  old  disciple, 
and  starting  thence  we  came  to  Jerusalem."  Naturally 
these  marked  divergences  have  given  rise  to  many  theories 
about  their  origin,  and  as  yet  no  satisfactory  conclusion 
has  been  reached,  though  it  seems  probable  that  they 
are  ultimately  due  to  the  notes  of  some  scribe  who  has 
taken  this  way  of  preserving  traditions  which  were  not 
embodied  in  the  original  writing. 

The  date  of  the  book  cannot  be  very  much  later  than 
that  of  Luke's  Gospel,  and  may  be  even  immediately 
subsequent  to  it,  so*  that  somewhere  about  the  year  80 
is  the  period  we  must  think  of  as  that  to  which  the 
original  belongs. 

As  to  the  nature  of  the  book,  the  author's  own  name 
for  it  is  a  "  treatise."     It  is  neither  a  collection  of  mere 


THE    ACTS    OF   THE    APOSTLES     67 

annals  or  of  the  biographies  of  individuals,  nor  yet  is  it 
a  comprehensive  record  of  the  Church's  origin  and 
development.  It  seems  to  fulfil  a  twofold  purpose, 
being  on  the  one  hand  a  book  of  practical  religious  in- 
struction, showing  its  readers  how  the  Gospel  spread 
and  the  Church  developed  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Divine  Spirit,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  earliest 
specimen  of  the  apologies  of  Christianity  which  were 
a  marked  feature  of  the  second  century.  All  through  it 
is  favourable  to  the  Roman  Government.  The  various 
Roman  officials  who  are  introduced  are  spoken  of 
sympathetically,  and  the  opportunities  afforded  by  the 
Imperial  Government  for  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  are 
everywhere  emphasised.  The  writer's  methods  are  those 
of  the  historian  of  the  time,  and  we  must  not  suppose 
that  all  the  speeches  are  to  be  taken  as  verbatim  reports 
of  the  actual  words  used,  but  are  rather  the  author's 
own  setting  of  the  arguments  employed  by  the  various 
persons  on  the  occasion  in  question.  Sometimes,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  speech  of  Stephen,  and  of  that  delivered 
by  Paul  at  Athens,  he  seems  to  be  more  than  usually 
well  informed  about  the  actual  language  employed,  but 
on  other  occasions  the  language  is  almost  certainly  due 
more  to  the  writer  than  to  the  speaker.     We  may  be 


6S     BOOKS    OF    NEW   TESTAMENT 

thankful  that  he  has  not  always  used  his  editorial  powers 
to  harmonise  too  closely  his  different  sources,  as  e.g. 
when  he  preserves  for  us  three  separate  accounts  of 
Paul's  conversion,  for  in  this  way  we  are  better  able  to 
reach  the  original  account  of  the  events  he  records. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  EPISTLES  OF  PAUL 

A  VERY  large  number  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  written  in  the  form  of  letters.  This  was,  of 
course,  no  new  method  invented  by  the  Christian 
writers.  Letters  had  always  been  a  common  way  of 
conveying  messages  from  friend  to  friend,  or  from  a 
leader  to  some  community  in  which  he  was  interested. 
In  the  Old  Testament  we  have  a  letter  written  by 
Jeremiah  to  his  friends  in  exile  at  Babylon,  contained 
in  chapter  xxix.  of  his  book  of  prophecies,  and  in 
addition  to  the  actual  books  written  in  the  form  of 
letters  in  the  New  Testament,  we  have  two  letters  con- 
tained in  the  Book  of  Acts — one  in  Acts  xv.  23-29,  and 
one  in  Acts  xxiii.  25-30.  Recent  discoveries  among 
the  Egyptian  papyri  have  unearthed  many  hundred 
letters  of  the  period,  and  from  these  we  can  discover 

the  general  form  of  letters  then  current.     These  have 

69 


70     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

shown  us  that  Paul  and  the  other  letter  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  have  moulded  their  communications 
on  the  ordinary  form  of  epistolary  communication  of  the 
period.  Perhaps  the  letter  that  comes  nearest  to  the 
general  type  of  such  productions  is  that  known  as  III. 
John.  In  addition  to  the  greetings  and  salutations  con- 
tained in  almost  all  the  New  Testament  letters,  we  find 
that  the  general  form  of  Paul's  letters — namely,  saluta- 
tion, a  thanksgiving,  a  prayer,  personal  messages,  and  a 
final  greeting — follows  the  general  outline  of  ordinary 
private  letters. 

Origin. — We  can  thus  see  that  Paul's  letters  arose 
out  of  the  ordinary  circumstances  of  social  intercourse, 
being  in  many  cases  the  result  of  oral  or  written  mes- 
sages sent  by  his  friends  and  converts  to  himself;  and 
sometimes  he  certainly  embodies  quotations  from  these 
letters  in  his  own  replies.  This  seems  to  be  the  best 
explanation  of  such  verses  as  I.  Cor.  vii.  i ;  viii.  i ; 
viii.  8,  &c.  Much  light  is  thrown  upon  Paul's  method 
and  thought  by  reading  his  letters  in  chronological 
order,  and  though  there  is  considerable  difference  of 
opinion  among  scholars  as  to  the  exact  order  of  some  of 
the  letters,  there  is  general  agreement  as  to  the  groups, 
and  a  considerable  amount  of  unanimity  as  to  the  exact 


I.    THESSALONIANS  71 

order  here  given.  In  any  case  it  is  important  to  have 
the  groups  clear,  and  we  shall  follow  this  order  in  the 
discussions  of  the  individual  letters. 

I.  The  earliest  letters — I.  and  II.  Thessalonians. 

II.  The  great  letters — Galatians,  I.  and  II.  Corin- 
thians, Romans. 

This  group  contains  the  letters  accepted  as  Paul's  by 
all  schools  of  scholarship,  except  a  few  erratic  Dutch 
scholars  and  their  followers.  For  an  account  of  their 
views  and  an  effective  answer  to  them,  see  Shaw's 
"  Pauline  Epistles."  The  views  themselves  may  be  read 
in  articles  in  the  Encydopcedia  Biblica. 

III.  The  letters  written  during  the  captivity  in 
Rome — Colossians,  Philemon,  Ephesians,  Philippians. 

The  pastoral  letters — I.  and  II.  Timothy,  Titus. 
We  shall  begin  our  detailed  discussion,  therefore,  with 

I.  THESSALONIANS 
The  city  of  Thessalonica,  to  the  Christian  community 
in  which  this  letter  was  addressed,  was  one  which,  under 
Roman  rule,  preserved  much  of  its  original  Greek  form, 
and  its  magistrates  were  known  by  the  technical  title  of 
Politarchs,  as  Luke  tells  us  in  Acts  xvii.  6.  It  was  a 
flourishing  and  important  city,  one  of  the  chief  centres 


72     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  population  in  Macedonia.  When  Paul  reached  it  he 
began  his  work,  as  elsewhere,  in  the  Jewish  synagogue, 
but  it  was  among  the  Gentiles  that  he  obtained  his 
largest  number  of  converts.  The  Jews  stirred  up  the 
rabble  of  the  city  against  him,  and  created  a  consider- 
able riot,  attempting  to  implicate  Paul  and  his  friends  in 
a  plot  against  the  Roman  authority.  They  were  com- 
pelled to  escape  hurriedly  to  Beroea,  and  at  a  later  time 
Paul  sent  Timothy  on  a  visit  to  the  Thessalonian 
Church.  It  is  as  the  outcome  of  this  visit  that  the  first 
letter  was  written,  almost  certainly  from  Corinth,  and 
probably  in  or  about  the  year  50. 

The  immediate  object  of  the  letter  was  to  confirm  the 
faith  of  the  Thessalonians  in  the  truth  of  the  life  after 
death  of  the  believers  in  Christ,  and  to  assure  them  that 
their  friends  who  had  died  would  be  at  no  disadvantage 
in  the  event  of  their  Lord's  sudden  Advent  during  the 
life  of  the  survivors.  At  this  period  of  his  ministry  Paul 
evidently  looked  for  that  event  in  the  near  future,  and 
supposed  that  he  and  many  of  his  friends  would  be 
alive  when  it  took  place.  He  further  deals  in  the  letter 
with  the  question  of  internal  disorders  in  the  Church, 
and  gives  particular  injunctions  about  the  proper  con- 
duct of  the  Christian  disciple.     It  is  interesting  to  trace 


I.    THESSALONIANS  73 

in  this  letter  the  germ  of  many  ideas  which  were  after- 
wards more  fully  developed  in  later  communications  of 
the  Apostle — e.g.  we  have  in  chapter  i.  3  the  group  of 
the  three  Christian  virtues  of  faith,  love,  and  hope,  which 
afterwards  form  the  subject-matter  of  I.  Cor.  xiii.  In 
i.  10  we  have  emphasis  laid  upon  the  importance  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  as  the  foundation  truth  of  the 
Christian  faith,  and  in  v.  10  we  have  the  germ  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  life  in  Christ,  which  takes  so  prominent 
a  place  in  later  epistles.  It  is  thus  clear  that  there  was 
not  such  a  marked  development  as  is  often  supposed  in 
the  later  theology  of  the  Apostle,  but  that  the  central 
ideas  of  his  special  doctrines  w^ere  present  to  his  mind 
and  in  his  preaching  at  the  outset,  and  that  the  fuller 
statement  of  these  truths  in  later  letters  is  largely  due  to 
the  special  circumstances  of  subsequent  controversy. 

The  earliest  definite  reference  to  the  epistle  is  found 
in  Irenseus,  but  we  know  it  was  contained  in  the  canon 
of  Marcion,  and  the  Mur.  Can.  contains  it  in  its  list. 
It  is  only  in  modern  times  that  its  authenticity  has 
been  questioned,  and  the  main  objection  has  arisen 
from  its  supposed  lack  of  a  full  statement  of  char- 
acteristic Pauline  doctrine,  but  the  explanation  of  this 
fact  has  been  given  above.     It  contains  a  great  many 


74     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

words  that  are  characteristic  of  Paul's  vocabulary  in 
the  epistles  about  which  there  is  no  doubt  of  his 
authorship,  and  there  are  also  many  forms  of  expres- 
sion that  are  characteristic  of  Paul.  His  acquaintance 
is  likewise  shown  in  this  letter  with  the  Greek  version 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
especially  as  contained  in  the  apocalyptic  discourse 
recorded  in  Matthew  xxiii.  and  xxiv.  {cf.  especially 
iv.  1 6  with  Matthew  xxiv.  30;  v.  2  with  Matthew  xxiv. 
43 ;  V.  7  with  Matthew  xxiv.  48). 


II.   THESSALONIANS 

The  second  letter  to  the  same  Church  probably 
followed  the  first  after  a  very  short  interval.  The 
immediate  reason  of  its  being  sent  is  obviously  further 
difficulty  about  the  doctrine  of  the  coming  of  the 
Lord.  The  Apostle's  teaching  in  the  first  letter  had 
not  been  clearly  understood,  and  it  appears  {cf.  ii.  2) 
that  certain  teachers,  either  by  oral  or  written  com- 
munications, had  thrown  doubts  upon  Paul's  theories. 
In  this  letter  he  refers  again  (cf.  ii.  5)  to  the  teaching 
on  the  subject  he  had  given  them  when  present  at 
Thessalonica,  and  in  a  very  difficult  passage,  namely, 


II.    THESSALONIANS  75 

ii.  1-12,  he  discusses  the  subject  of  the  series  of 
events  that  must  first  take  place  before  the  Advent 
is  to  be  expected.  Inasmuch  as  this  passage  impHes 
a  knowledge  of  his  oral  teaching,  which  we  cannot 
recover,  it  is  very  difficult  to  interpret,  and  forms  one 
of  the  riddles  of  the  New  Testament.  The  rest  of 
the  letter  is  very  like  its  predecessor  in  general  outline 
and  contents,  though  we  can  see  that  further  dis- 
turbances of  belief  had  led  to  increased  irregularities 
of  conduct.  For  one  thing,  some  of  the  Christians 
at  Thessalonica  had  come  to  believe  that  the  Advent 
was  so  near  an  event  that  they  might  neglect  their 
ordinary  occupations  and  depend  upon  their  richer 
brethren  for  support.  Against  this  attitude  the  Apostle 
protests  with  the  greatest  vehemence,  and  gives  sane 
counsel  for  the  quiet  and  orderly  conduct  of  the 
Christian  life. 

Curiously  enough,  the  external  evidence  for  this 
epistle  is  clearer  than  for  the  former  one,  inasmuch 
as  we  find  Polycarp  in  his  letter  to  the  Philippians 
twice  quoting  from  this  letter.  In  one  case  he  seems 
to  have  confused  the  source  of  his  quotation  with 
Paul's  letter  to  the  Philippians,  but  the  words  he  quotes 
are   only  found  in   this   letter,  and  so  we  take  it  that 


76     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

he  was  acquainted  with  it,  though  he  had  momentarily 
forgotten  the  precise  source  from  which  the  words 
came.  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho, 
uses  language  that  bears  the  closest  resemblance  to 
a  passage  in  the  second  chapter,  and  the  same  thing 
is  true  in  the  second  century  letter  from  Gaul,  referred 
to  on  page  20.  Irenaeus  is  the  first  to  mention  it  by 
name,  and  it  is  contained  both  in  the  canon  of  Marcion 
and  in  the  Mur.  Can. 

Many  modern  scholars  have  raised  objections  to 
its  Pauline  authorship  on  the  ground,  first,  of  its 
language.  The  peculiar  words  that  are  discovered  in 
it  are  mainly  to  be  found  in  the  unique  passage  in 
chap,  ii.,  where  we  might  expect  to  find  them,  but 
the  rest  of  the  epistle  shows  not  only  much  similarity 
to  I.  Thessalonians,  but  also  to  the  other  writings  of 
Paul,  and  the  whole  tone  of  the  epistle  is  in  close 
agreement  with  his  general  thought.  Secondly,  excep- 
tion has  been  taken  to  it  because  it  is  so  close  a 
copy  in  many  respects  of  the  first  letter.  It  is  argued, 
therefore,  that  some  one  has  copied  the  former  writing 
in  the  name  of  Paul.  The  resemblances,  close  as 
they  are,  are  not,  however,  to  be  termed  slavish 
copying,    and    similar    resemblances    are    traceable   at 


11.    THESSALONIANS  77 

least  in  other  two  of  Paul's  letters,  Colossians  and 
Ephesians.  It  is  not  likely  that  any  one  who  is  attempt- 
ing to  pass  off  a  letter  of  his  own  under  Paul's  name 
\70uld  introduce  so  peculiar  a  passage  as  that  in  the 
second  chapter,  and  so  some  scholars  suggest  that 
that  section  is  an  interpolation,  some  holding  it  to 
be  the  only  genuinely  Pauline  fragment  in  the  whole 
letter,  while  some  who  regard  the  rest  of  the  letter 
as  Paul's,  look  upon  this  section  as  unauthentic.  The 
third  ground  of  criticism  is  also  based  upon  the  diffi- 
cult section  so  often  referred  to.  It  is  said  that  it 
contains  teaching  now^here  else  paralleled  in  Paul's 
writings.  This,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  true,  but 
there  are  many  examples  in  the  rest  of  Paul's  letters 
of  isolated  discussions,  and  if  the  same  problems  never 
arose  elsewhere,  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  he 
did  not  discuss  them.  Unless  it  can  be  shown  that 
Paul  could  not  possibly  have  written  in  this  manner, 
we  need  not  feel  much  disturbed  by  the  line  of  argu- 
ment that  criticises  it  only  because  it  is  unique. 

We  may  turn,  therefore,  to  a  brief  examination  of  the 
difficult  passage  itself.  It  is  no  doubt  written  in  the 
general  style  of  Apocalypse,  of  which  more  will  be  said 
at  a  later  stage  (see  p.  167).    This  always  causes  obscurity 


78     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  later  readers  who  are  not  in  full  possession  of  the 
facts  referred  to,  and  in  this  particular  instance  Paul 
reminds  his  readers  that  he  is  alluding  to  teaching  they 
had  heard  from  himself.  One  thing  is  certain,  the 
persons  hinted  at  in  the  passage  were  recognisable  by 
the  readers,  and  we  have  to  remember  that  some  of 
the  phrases  employed  were  current  in  Jewish  literature 
of  the  period.  The  most  probable  explanation  is  that 
the  "  man  of  lawlessness  "  or  "  son  of  perdition  "  was  a 
personification  of  the  Judaising  teachers  who  were  so 
prominent  in  the  Galatian  letter,  while  the  restraining 
force  or  restraining  person  is  almost  certainly  to  be 
identified  with  the  Roman  power,  for  which  Paul  always 
had  shown  the  highest  respect,  though  we  need  not 
attempt  to  identify  the  reference  with  any  one  Roman 
emperor  who  at  the  time  embodied  that  poAver. 

The  date  of  the  letter  can  only  be  a  little  later  than 
that  of  I.  Thessalonians,  and  we  need  not  attempt  to  fix 
it  with  greater  exactitude. 

GALATIANS 

The  very  title  of  this  epistle  raises  the  first  and  one 

of  the   most  interesting    questions    with  regard   to   it, 

namely,  where  is  Galatia?     It  used  to  be  supposed. 


GALATIANS  79 

without  any  question,  that  the  district  so  named  con- 
sisted of  the  northern  part  of  Asia  Minor  that  lies  not  far 
south  of  the  Black  Sea.  If,  however,  this  is  the  case, 
then  we  have  one  of  Paul's  letters  written  to  a  com- 
munity about  which  we  have  no  information  elsewhere 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  name  Galatia  occurs  twice 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (see  xvi.  6,  and  xviii.  23). 
If  these  verses  refer  to  the  northern  district  of  Asia 
Minor,  there  is  considerable  difficulty  in  understanding 
the  Apostle's  movements,  as  a  reference  to  a  map  will 
at  once  make  clear.  The  fact  is  that  the  usage  of  the 
term  Galatia  varied  very  much  during  the  century  that 
preceded  our  era  and  throughout  the  first  and  second 
centuries  of  our  era.  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  the 
second  century  the  term  did  become  confined  to  the 
northern  district  of  Asia  Minor,  but  at  the  period  at 
which  Paul  was  writing,  there  is  every  probabiHty  that 
it  referred  to  the  Roman  province  which  included  the 
w^ell-known  towns  of  Antioch,  Derbe,  Lystra,  and 
Iconium,  of  the  missionary  work  in  which  we  have 
such  careful  accounts  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  It  has  been 
shown  that  Luke's  method  of  referring  to  the  district 
is  that  which  was  ordinarily  employed  in  speaking  of 
Southern  Galatia,  and  the  argument  is  also  supported 


8o     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

by  reference  to  customs  and  laws  which  were  pecuHar 
to  the  district  in  Roman  times,  and  by  which  certain 
passages  in  the  epistle  are  best  explained.  The  main 
points  that  can  be  elucidated  by  reference  to  the 
current  customs  in  the  province  of  South  Galatla  are 
those  of  adoption,  the  making  of  wills  or  covenants, 
and  the  special  character  of  the  tutor  or  paidagogos 
{cf.  Gal.  iii.  24)  found  in  the  Galatian  letter.  The 
further  value  of  the  theory  is  that,  if  it  is  right,  we  are 
enabled  to  have  a  background  of  history  in  reading  the 
letter  whereby  we  can  understand  the  origin  of  the 
churches  that  Paul  there  founded,  and  the  special 
connection  of  Barnabas,  Timothy,  and  Titus  with  them. 
The  main  objection  to  this  theory  is  that  stated 
with  great  clearness  by  Bousset,  namely,  that  Paul 
tells  us  in  iv.  13  of  this  epistle  that  he  first  preached 
to  the  Galatians  because  of  an  infirmity  of  the  flesh. 
Now  there  is  no  mention  of  any  sickness  in  the 
account  given  in  Acts  of  the  journey  in  Southern 
Galatia,  but  the  phrase  in  xvi.  6,  "having  been  for- 
bidden of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  may  very  well  refer  to 
some  sickness  that  had  hindered  his  carrying  out  the 
journey  he  had  proposed.  The  majority  of  the  argu- 
ments   seem,  however,   to  lean  to  the   South   Galatian 


GALATIANS  8i 

theory,  and   we   may  take  it  as  more   probable   than 
the  older  view. 

There  is  no  question  about  the  authenticity  of  the 
epistle,  for  it  bears  on  every  line  of  it  the  sign  manual 
of  the  Apostle.  Nobody  but  he  could  have  written 
these  sentences  which  throb  and  pulsate  with  the 
affection  of  his  heart,  and  with  his  righteous  indigna- 
tion against  those  who  were  trying  to  undo  his  work, 
and  bring  an  unnecessary  bondage  upon  the  new- 
found freemen  in  Christ  Jesus.  Nowhere  can  we  see 
better  the  strange  involved  constructions  into  which 
the  very  turmoil  of  his  thought  sometimes  carries  him. 
In  this  letter  also  we  have  the  central  positions  of  his 
teaching,  given,  if  not  so  fully,  certainly  more  passion- 
ately than  in  Romans.  The  epistle  likewise  contains 
a  large  section  of  autobiography,  and  that  is  not 
without  its  own  difficulties,  for  it  is  not  easy  to  re- 
concile the  statements  made  in  some  parts  of  it  with 
those  of  the  historian  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  Where, 
however,  we  have  to  make  a  choice,  it  is  preferable 
to  accept  the  personal  witness  of  the  Apostle  rather 
than  the  second-hand  statement  of  a  historian,  even 
if  he  is  proved  to  be  in  the  main  a  careful  one.  The 
chief  points  of  difficulty  are  those  in  i.   17,  where  he 


82     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

definitely  says  he  did  not  go  to  Jerusalem  imme- 
diately after  his  conversion,  when  compared  with  the 
statements  in  Acts  ix.  26-30.  If  it  be  supposed  that 
the  interval  in  Arabia  is  not  mentioned  in  Acts,  but 
intervenes  between  verses  25  and  26,  then  the  state- 
ment of  Galatians  i.  19,  that  he  saw  none  of  the 
Apostles  save  Peter  and  James,  and  of  22  that  he 
was  still  unknown  by  face  to  the  churches  of  Judea, 
conflicts  with  Acts  ix.  27,  which  tells  of  his  introduc- 
tion to  the  Apostles  by  Barnabas,  and  of  verses  28  and 
29  which  tell  of  his  preaching  at  Jerusalem.  It  is 
also  difficult  to  reconcile  the  narrative  of  Galatians  ii. 
i-io  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  certainly  does 
not  seem  to  suit  the  circumstances  of  Acts  xv.,  and 
is  more  likely  to  be  an  account  of  some  private  con- 
ference of  which  Luke  was  either  not  aware,  or  did 
not  consider  of  sufficient  importance  for  the  general 
purposes  of  his  story  to  record.  For  Paul,  however, 
the  matter  was  one  of  vital  interest,  because  it  gave 
him  the  justification  for  his  subsequent  action,  and 
freed  him  from  the  charge  of  acting  contrary  to  the 
knowledge  and  express  desire  of  the  Apostles  at 
Jerusalem. 

In   this  letter  there  are  one  or  two  passages  which 


GALATIANS  83 

throw  light  on  Paul's  view  of  the  Old  Testament.     In 

that  line  of  his  thought,  more  clearly  than  elsewhere, 
comes  out  his  Rabbinical  training.  He  frequently 
interprets  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  in  the  most 
allegorical  way,  and  lays  such  great  stress  upon  single 
words,  or  upon  a  verse  taken  out  of  its  context,  as  to 
spoil  the  validity  of  the  argument  to  modern  Western 
minds.  Good  examples  of  this  are  to  be  found  in 
iii.  13,  16,  and  of  the  strange  use  of  allegory  in 
iv.  21-31.  He  follows  the  Rabbis  in  another  matter, 
namely,  in  personifying  Scripture  (see  iii.  8).  But 
what  strikes  us  more  than  the  methods  of  his  inter- 
pretation is  the  wonderful  freedom  from  all  bondage 
to  the  letter  of  Scripture,  and  the  magnificent  faith 
that  can  read  in  the  whole  story  of  the  past  the 
preparation  for  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  This  is  most 
remarkable  in  the  central  argument  of  the  epistle, 
that  through  faith  in  Christ  the  Gentiles  are  able  to 
go  back  into  the  relation  with  God  that  Abraham 
possessed,  which  was  a  relation  founded  upon  promise, 
not  upon  the  rigid  observance  of  outward  ceremonials. 
Between  God  and  Abraham  the  relation  was  a  direct 
and  personal  one,  and  so,  through  Christ,  is  it  with 
every   soul   that   beHeves   in    Him.      This   constituted 


84     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  greatness  and  the  freshness  of  Paul's  Gospel,  and 
to  him  the  demand  of  the  Jewish  teachers  that  the 
Galatians,  if  they  would  advance  to  the  greatest  possible 
heights  of  Christian  attainment,  should  superadd  to 
their  Christian  faith  observance  of  Jewish  practices, 
was  nothing  short  of  blasphemy,  and  was  equivalent 
to  denying  the  very  Gospel  of  Christ.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that  the  Galatian  epistle  became  Luther's 
favourite,  and  was  such  an  instrument  in  his  hands 
for  the  progress  of  the  Reformation.  The  letter  bears 
all  through  the  marks  of  the  heat  of  controversy, 
but,  as  Bousset  says,  "  it  is  in  the  hottest  hours 
that  the  finest  fruit  ripens." 

The  question  of  the  epistle's  date  has  been  much 
discussed,  and  there  are  no  very  definite  grounds  upon 
which  to  decide  it.  The  main  elements  in  coming 
to  a  conclusion  are  (i)  the  question  of  its  destination, 
and  (2)  the  content  of  the  epistle  when  compared 
with  others  that  belong  to  the  same  period.  If  the 
Southern  Galatia  theory  is  the  correct  one,  then 
Ramsay's  argument  that  it  was  written  from  the  Syrian 
Antioch,  when  Paul  was  about  to  start  on  his  third 
journey,  i.e.  about  the  year  53,  is  a  most  probable 
one.     Even  some  who  hold  the  North  Galatian  theory 


I.    CORINTHIANS  85 

are  prepared  to  date  the  epistle  not  much  later,  but 
others  would  place  it  during  the  third  journey,  and 
consider  that  it  must  have  been  written  either  from 
Ephesus  or  Corinth  about  the  year  57.  The  second 
consideration  deals  with  the  relation  of  the  thought 
of  the  epistle  to  that  of  Corinthians  and  Romans. 
II.  Corinthians  deals,  as  this  letter  does,  with  Paul's 
opponents,  probably  also  Judaisers,  and  Romans  dis- 
cusses at  greater  length  and  with  more  fulness  of 
detail  the  question  of  the  law,  in  such  a  way,  indeed, 
as  to  lead  the  majority  of  readers  to  think  that  it  is 
a  later  treatment  of  the  subject  than  that  given  in 
Galatians.  It  seems  probable,  too,  that  the  disturb- 
ances in  Corinth  were  subsequent  to  those  in  Galatia. 
The  close  connection  of  the  first  and  second  letters 
to  Corinth  make  it,  on  the  whole,  probable  that  the 
Galatian  letter  is  the  earliest  of  the  group.  But  our 
knowledge  of  the  whole  circumstances  is  not  sufficiently 
definite  to  enable  us  to  reach  any  dogmatic  conclusion. 

I.  CORINTHIANS 
The  city  of  Corinth  was  almost  a  synonym  among  the 
Greeks  for  pleasure-loving,  luxury,  and  vice.     To  this 
city  Paul  came  in  the  course  of  his  third  missionary 


86     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

journey,  and  settled  down  at  his  trade,  formed  friend- 
ships, and  pursued  with  persistent  patience  his  mis- 
sionary activities.  At  last  the  Jews  interfered,  and  tried 
to  bring  Paul  under  the  condemnation  of  the  Roman 
magistrate.  This,  however,  proved  unsuccessful,  and 
Paul  worked  on  patiently,  with,  it  appears,  increasing 
success,  winning  even  the  leader  of  the  persecution  over 
to  the  side  of  Christ.  From  Corinth  the  Apostle  passed 
to  Ephesus,  and,  while  there,  news  would  constantly 
reach  him  of  the  state  of  affairs  in  the  infant  community. 
From  I.  Cor.  v.  9  it  appears  that  he  wrote  a  letter 
dealing  with  some  of  the  difficulties  in  the  Church 
which  had  arisen  from  the  lax  moral  atmosphere  of  "the 
ancient  Paris,"  for  many  have  drawn  the  parallel  between 
the  gaiety  of  the  old  Greek  city  and  the  modern  French 
capital.  Subsequently  (see  iv.  17)  Timothy  was  sent 
as  an  ambassador,  and  when  again  a  letter  reached  him 
from  Corinth  itself,  he  writes  the  very  full  answer  that  is 
now  known  to  us  as  the  first  epistle.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  interesting  and  valuable  documents  in  the  whole 
New  Testament,  not  so  much  for  its  revelation  of  the 
writer — for  that  we  look  more  to  Galatians  and  II.  Cor. 
— but  for  the  excellent  picture  it  affords  of  the  con- 
ditions of  early  Church  life  in  a  Gentile  community,  and 


I.    CORINTHIANS  87 

for  its  insight  into  the  manners  and  methods  of  Chris- 
tian hfe,  worship,  and  thought  in  the  middle  of  the  first 
century. 

Character  of  Church. — It  is  natural  that  in  a  letter  of 
this  character  we  should  have  the  darker  and  more  un- 
satisfactory side  of  the  Church  life  emphasised,  because 
it  is  the  difficulties  of  the  situation  that  necessitated  the 
Apostle's  discussion,  and  the  dark  sides  of  their  practical 
life  which  drew  forth  his  warnings  and  rebukes.  But 
we  can  also  see  from  one  short  paragraph  (i.  4-9)  that 
there  were  great  elements  of  successful  Christian  attain- 
ment in  the  Corinthian  Church.  They  were  men  who 
showed  a  rich  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  a  readiness  to 
proclaim  Him.  They  were  not  behindhand  in  any  gift  of 
the  Christian  character,  but  were,  like  the  Thessalonians, 
living  steadfastly  in  anticipation  of  the  Lord's  appear- 
ance. The  weaknesses  of  the  Church  arose  in  the  main 
from  their  readiness  to  display  party  feeling.  Out  of 
this  temper  sprang  many  of  their  defects.  Because  of  it 
the  rich  despised  the  poor,  and  the  learned  the  unlearned, 
and  thus  disgraceful  scenes  arose,  both  at  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  at  the  ordinary  services  of  the  Church. 
Women,  glorying  in  the  freedom  and  equality  that  is 
in  Christ  Jesus,  were  forgetful  of  what  seemed  to  the 


88     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ancient  world  their  proper  dignity  and  modesty,  and 
what  was  lacking  throughout  the  whole  community 
was  the  spirit  of  self-sacrificing  and  self-forgetful  love. 
Liberty  of  thought  had  also  overstepped  what  seemed 
to  the  Apostle  its  due  limits,  both  in  the  practical 
question  of  mingling  too  freely  with  the  heathen  com- 
munity, and  in  the  speculative  region  of  discussion  about 
the  nature  of  the  resurrection  and  the  life  beyond  death. 
To  all  these  and  other  topics  the  Apostle  turns  with 
great  care  and  fulness  in  the  pages  of  this  letter. 

The  external  evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  this 
epistle  is  earlier  than  that  for  any  other  book  -in  the 
New  Testament,  because  Clement  of  Rome,  who  him- 
self wrote  to  the  Church  at  Corinth  before  the  end  of 
the  first  century,  counsels  them  as  follows :  "  Take  up 
the  epistle  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Paul.  What  did  he 
write  to  you  at  the  time  when  the  Gospel  first  began 
to  be  preached  ?  Truly,  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
Spirit,  he  wrote  to  you  concerning  himself,  and  Cephas 
and  Apollos,  because  even  then  ye  had  made  for  your- 
selves parties."  This  would  be  sufficiently  definite  with- 
out our  looking  for  further  evidence,  but  we  find  Poly- 
carp  quoting  a  verse  from  the  epistle,  and  adding  to 
the  quotation   the  words,   "as  Paul   teaches,"  and  the 


I.    CORINTHIANS  89 

epistle  is  found  in  the  works  of  Irenaeus  and  in  the 
Muratorian  Canon. 

Its  internal  evidence  of  authenticity  is  equally  clear, 
for  the  mark  of  Paul's  language  and  thought  is  upon 
every  chapter,  and  the  autobiographical  passage  in 
chapter  xv.  would  be  in  itself  sufficient  to  demonstrate 
whose  work  it  was.  Neither  is  there  any  question  about 
the  unity  of  the  epistle.  No  reasonable  critic  suggests 
that  any  part  should  be  separated  from  the  whole. 

It  is  impossible  here  to  deal  with  the  many  points  of 
interest  raised  by  the  epistle,  but  one  or  two  of  them 
may  be  glanced  at.  (i)  Paul's  claim  to  the  apostolate 
as  set  forth  in  this  epistle  (see  ix.  i ;  xv.  8,  9).  He 
bases  this  position  upon  his  having  seen  Jesus,  and  there 
is  no  question  that  the  reference  is  to  the  vision  on  the 
way  to  Damascus ;  but  he  further  adds  as  a  proof  of  his 
being  an  Apostle  the  result  of  his  ministry  {cf.  ix.  2). 
The  second  important  point  is  the  evidence  the  episde 
gives  of  Paul's  knowledge  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  In 
vii.  10  we  have  a  definite  reference  to  such  words  as 
those  recorded  in  Mark  x.  9.  In  ix.  14  we  have  a 
reference  to  Matt.  xi.  i  ;  and  in  xi.  23  we  have  a  clear 
account  of  what  is  recorded  in  each  of  the  three 
synoptics  about  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 


90     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

These  are  the  most  definite  cases ;  but  a  reference  to 
such  a  book  as  Knowling's  "  The  Testimony  of  St.  Paul 
to  Christ,"  will  furnish  the  reader  with  many  other 
instances.  It  is  impossible  to  tell,  of  course,  whether 
in  such  cases  the  writer  quotes  from  oral  or  written 
traditions.  (2)  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  sacraments,  as 
set  forth  here.  As  to  baptism,  he  shows  incidentally 
that  he  laid  very  little  stress  upon  his  own  performance 
of  the  rite,  being  extremely  thankful  that  he  had  person- 
ally baptized  very  few  of  the  community  lest  they  should 
increase  their  party  feeling  through  the  circumstance. 
The  spiritual  significance  of  the  rite,  to  which  he 
frequently  returns  elsewhere,  is  referred  to  in  xii.  13. 
A  curious  practice  is  alluded  to  in  xv.  29,  which  has 
given  rise  to  much  discussion.  Whatever  its  real  ex- 
planation may  be,  it  at  any  rate  shows  that  for  the 
Apostle  baptism  had  a  distinct  significance  in  holding 
in  itself  a  promise  of  the  risen  life  in  Christ.  As  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  we  have  not  only  a  statement  of  its 
institution,  but  a  picture  of  the  way  in  which  abuses 
easily  arose  in  connection  with  it.  It  was  apparently 
celebrated  as  part  of  a  real  love  feast  or  agapi^,  as  it  was 
called  in  the  early  Church.  The  fourth  point  is  Paul's 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and  here  we  see  that  he 


II.    CORINTHIANS  91 

made  everything  centre  upon  his  own  vision  of  Christ 
at  his  conversion.  This,  Paul  believed,  had  been  made 
to  him  in  a  spiritual  body,  and  our  union  with  Christ, 
through  faith,  guarantees  for  us  the  possession  of  a 
similar  body  in  the  other  life.  The  meaning  of  the 
resurrection,  therefore,  is  not  exhausted  either  by  the 
risen  life  in  Christ,  through  faith,  now  lived  by  His 
disciple,  nor  by  a  vague  immortality,  but  by  a  personal, 
individual,  recognisable  life  beyond  death. 

The   place  from   which  the   epistle  was  written  was 
certainly  Ephesus,  and  the  year  most  probably  56  or  57. 


II.  CORINTHIANS 

This  letter  has  well  been  termed  "  the  greatest  apology 
of  the  Apostle,"  and  with  such  clear  internal  evidence  as 
it  possesses  of  being  the  production  of  his  own  brain 
and  heart,  it  is  little  use  laying  much  stress  upon  the 
external  evidence.  Still  the  latter  is  sufficient.  It 
was  known  to,  and  used  by  Marcion,  and  is  also 
quoted  by  Irenseus,  and  is  in  the  list  of  the  Mur.  Can. 
It  has  well  been  styled  by  Bousset  the  most  intimately 
personal  of  all  Paul's  writings.  We  may  quote  part  of 
that  scholar's  testimony  :  "  If  we  ask,"  he  says,  "  who 


92     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Paul  was,  this  letter  gives  the  answer  in  the  best  possible 
way.  Everything  in  it  is  deeply  personal.  The  nervous 
attractive  personality  of  the  Apostle  speaks  throughout 
it  with  the  most  extraordinary  power.  What  a  gamut  of 
changing  notes,  wooing,  rebuking,  forgiving  love;  holy 
anger  flaming  in  fire;  high,  strong  confidence,  and 
knowledge  of  his  own  worthiness  in  the  sight  of  God 
and  men ;  a  bitter  consciousness  of  the  lack  of  harmony 
between  the  outward  and  the  inward  man;  and  yet  a 
joyful  expectation  of  the  final  harmonising  of  these 
discordant  elements." 

There  surround  the  letter,  however,  many  questions  of 
difficulty.  The  first  is  concerned  with  the  events  that 
called  this  letter  into  being.  From  the  first  letter  we 
learn  that  Timothy  had  been  Paul's  messenger  to  the 
Church ;  in  this  letter,  while  Timothy  is  associated  with 
Paul  in  the  opening  words,  it  is  not  he  but  Titus  that 
is  spoken  of  as  the  Apostle's  messenger  (see  vii.  5-15). 
It  is  probable  that  in  the  interval  between  the  visit  of 
Timothy  and  Titus,  Paul  had  himself  made  a  hurried 
visit  to  the  city,  which  would  then  be  referred  to  in 
ii.  I  of  this  epistle  {cf.  also  xiii.  2).  It  is  further  clear 
that  another  letter  must  have  been  written  to  the  Corin- 
thian Church  in  the  interval,  for  the  references  in  ii.  3,  4 


II.    CORINTHIANS  93 

cannot  be  made  by  any  plausible  theory  to  refer  to  our 
first  epistle.  It  is  most  likely,  therefore,  that  the  brief 
visit,  succeeded  by  the  now  lost  letter,  are  both  under- 
stood in  this  letter,  and  that  when  Paul  speaks  as  he 
does  in  xiii.  2  of  another  visit,  it  is  to  tell  the  Church 
that  he  will  not  then  spare  any  means  to  effect  a  per- 
manent settlement  of  all  the  internal  difficulties.  The 
missing  letter  had  apparently  been  entrusted  to  Titus, 
who  remained  in  Corinth  a  considerable  length  of  time 
in  order  to  carry  out  Paul's  plan.  For  some  reason, 
not  quite  clearly  known,  Paul  had  modified  his  plans  of 
travel  between  the  first  letter  and  the  second,  probably 
owing  to  circumstances  which  had  arisen  on  the  occasion 
of  his  hurried  second  visit.  Another  of  the  objects  for 
which  this  letter  was  written  was  to  induce  the  Church 
of  Corinth  to  aid  in  the  collection  of  funds  for  the  poor 
at  Jerusalem,  to  which  already  the  churches  in  Mace- 
donia had  contributed.  We  can  thus  see  that  a  good 
many  events  had  intervened  between  our  first  and  second 
letter,  and  that  we  must  allow  a  certain  interval — perhaps 
a  year  or  more — between  the  two  epistles. 

The  most  important  critical  points  with  reference  to 
this  epistle  are  those  concerned  with  its  unity.  The 
first  discussion  centres  round  the  short  paragraph  con- 


94     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

sisting  of  vi.  14  to  vii.  i.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the 
section  interrupts  the  sense,  and  that  vii.  2  follows  quite 
naturally  on  vi.  13.  It  has  been  argued,  therefore,  that 
the  short  paragraph  belongs  to  the  epistle  of  Paul  re- 
ferred to  in  1.  Cor.  v.  9.  There  is,  of  course,  no  external 
evidence  for  the  omission  of  the  section  at  any  time 
from  the  epistle,  and  it  is  rather  difficult  to  understand 
how  a  small  fragment  of  an  otherwise  lost  epistle  should 
have  become  embedded  here,  unless,  indeed,  it  were 
due  to  the  work  of  some  scribe  who  possessed  this  little 
section,  and,  being  very  eager  that  no  fragment  of  Paul's 
writing  should  be  lost,  had  inserted  it  where  he  thought 
it  was  most  appropriate.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  that 
the  paragraph  does  belong  to  this  epistle,  but  has  some- 
how become  misplaced.  It  is  certainly  not  easy  to  see 
its  appropriateness  in  its  present  connection,  but  it  is 
pure  speculation  to  suppose  that  it  belongs  to  a  lost 
letter. 

More  important  is  the  question  of  the  section  of  the 
letters  included  in  chaps,  x.  to  xiii.  This  is  often  known 
as  the  four-chapter  letter.  The  theory  is  that  in  these 
chapters  we  have  the  letter  referred  to  in  ii.  4  as  being 
written  by  the  Apostle  with  feelings  of  intense  grief. 
The  main  reasons  upon  which  this  theory  is  based  are 


II.    CORINTHIANS  95 

(i)  the  desire  to  find  the  letter  that  is  missing;  (2)  the 
feehng  that  these  chapters  are  different  in  tone  and 
feeling  from  the  earlier  part  of  the  letter ;  (3)  that  the 
appeal  for  the  collection  would,  as  in  the  case  of  I.  Cor., 
come  more  naturally  at  the  end  of  the  letter  than  in  the 
middle.  (4)  There  are  many  passages  in  these  chapters 
which  look  as  if  they  refer  to  a  period  earlier  than  that 
spoken  of  in  the  first  nine  chapters  {cf.  xiii.  10  with  ii.  3, 
and  note  write  and  wrote ;  cf.  xii.  2  with  i.  23,  and  note 
come  and  ca7ne).  Other  points  of  comparison  are  those 
that  deal  with  the  self-commendation  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  letter,  and  his  protesting  against  any  need  for 
commending  himself  in  the  earlier  part.  It  has  further 
been  supposed  that  the  person  referred  to  in  chap.  x. 
is  the  same  as  the  one  referred  to  in  ii.  6,  and  the  latter 
has  by  many  been  identified  with  the  wrong-doer  dealt 
with  in  the  first  epistle,  chap,  v.,  but  there  is  no  real 
proof  of  the  identification  in  any  case,  and  it  is  much 
more  likely  that  different  individuals  are  referred  to, 
and  that  the  whole  circumstances  are  now  unknown  to 
us.  It  must  further  be  remembered  that  there  is  no 
external  evidence  for  such  a  break  in  the  epistle,  and 
it  is  not  easy  to  suppose  how,  had  the  two  letters  once 
existed  separately,  all  evidence  of  their  beginning  and 


96     BOOKS    OF   NEW   TESTAMENT 

ending  should  have  vanished.  There  are  also  internal 
evidences  that  make  against  the  hypothesis.  We  have 
no  references  in  these  four  chapters  to  the  personal 
insult  which  apparently  Paul  had  received  at  the  hands 
of  some  members  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  and  which 
had  been  the  reason  for  his  writing  the  severe  letter. 
It  is  also  difficult  to  understand  the  mention  made  of 
Titus  in  chap,  xii.,  if  this  refers  to  his  being  sent  on 
that  difficult  commission.  The  change  of  tone  between 
the  first  and  second  parts  of  the  epistle  is  perhaps 
best  explained  by  the  supposition  that  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  letter  he  is  dealing  with  his  opponents,  the 
Judaisers,  with  whom  he  has  already  been  dealing  in 
the  Galatian  letter.  Bousset  thinks  that  at  the  begin- 
ning of  chap.  X.  Paul  had  taken  the  pen  into  his  hand 
himself,  and  purposed  writing  a  short  closing  message, 
but  that  his  anger  was  roused  at  memory  of  the 
Judaisers'  methods,  and  that  he  was  led  to  pour  forth 
his  soul  in  the  passionate  utterances  that  these  chapters 
contain.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  must  at  present 
accept  II.  Cor.  as  a  unity,  and  believe  that  its  very 
difficulties  constitute  the  more  distinct  proof  that  it  is 
a  self-revelation  of  the  man  of  many  moods  but  one 
unflinching  purpose,  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 


ROMANS  97 


ROMANS 

This  letter  is  one  of  those  best  vouched  for  by  exter- 
nal authority.  In  Clement  of  Rome  we  have  many 
quotations,  though  the  book  is  never  expressly  named, 
but  even  earlier  than  he  we  seem  to  have  references  to 
this  epistle  within  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament 
itself.  Many  similarities  exist  between  it  and  the  First 
Epistle  of  Peter  (see  e.g.  Rom.  xii.  i ;  I.  Peter  ii.  5 ; 
Rom.  xii.  16-18  ;  I.  Peter  iii.  8-9).  Resemblances  are 
also  discoverable  between  it  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  the  Epistle  of  James.  In  each  case  there 
is  some  discussion  as  to  the  priority  of  the  respective 
books,  but  in  the  judgment  of  the  present  writer  there 
is  no  question  that  Romans  is  the  source  in  each  case. 
A  strong  similarity  is  also  discoverable  between  the 
Doxology  of  Romans  and  the  Doxology  of  Jude. 
Next  to  Clement  of  Rome  comes  Ignatius,  in  whose 
letters  there  appear  numerous  reminiscences  of  this 
epistle,  as  is  also  the  case  with  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp. 
We  have  the  first  trace  of  the  letter  by  name  in  the 
Canon  of  Marcion,  and,  of  course,  it  is  included  in  the 
list  of  Paul's  epistles  found  in  Irenaeus  and  the  Mur. 


98     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Canon.  The  internal  evidence  is  strongly  in  favour  of 
Pauline  authorship.  Indeed,  no  epistle  is  more  clearly 
his  work  than  is  this  one. 

There  is,  however,  some  considerable  question  about 
the  integrity  of  the  epistle  as  it  now  stands,  and  there 
is  a  good  deal  even  in  the  external  evidence  for  the 
view  that  the  whole  or  part  of  the  last  two  chapters  do 
not  belong  to  this  letter.  To  begin  with,  there  are 
some  manuscripts  which  omit  the  words  "  in  Rome " 
in  i.  7  and  15,  which  seems  to  point  to  the  fact  that 
its  destination  was  not  quite  certain  to  all  scribes,  and 
that  there  may  have  been  manuscripts  which  either 
omitted  mention  of  a  destination  at  all,  or  gave  a 
different  one.  When  we  come  to  the  concluding 
chapters  we  find  a  great  variety  in  the  position  of 
the  Doxology  that  now  stands  at  chap.  xvi.  25-27. 
Some  manuscripts  have  it  only  at  the  end  of  chap,  xiv., 
others  in  both  places,  while  some  omit  it  altogether. 
It  seems  that  Marcion  omitted  the  last  two  chapters, 
and  there  is  some  evidence  that  certain  manuscripts 
followed  him.  Out  of  all  the  numerous  theories  that 
have  been  framed  to  account  for  these  facts,  we  can 
only  deal  with  one  that  has  found  a  large  amount  of 
support,  and  possesses  considerable  probability.     This 


ROMANS  99 


is  the  view  that  chap.  xvi.  belongs  to  a  letter  addressed 
to  Ephesus,  and  not  to  Rome.  The  theory  is  based 
on  the  following  grounds:  (i)  That  Paul  was  unlikely 
to  know  so  many  people  in  Rome  before  he  had  visited 
it ;  but  we  must  remember,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
Rome  was  the  centre  of  the  world's  life  at  the  time, 
and  that  many  friends  of  Paul  might  easily  have  found 
their  way  there,  and  settled  down  in  the  city,  just  as 
a  great  many  provincials  at  the  present  moment  could 
easily  send  a  large  number  of  personal  greetings  to 
friends  in  London,  though  they  may  never  have  visited 
that  city.  (2)  Some  of  the  names  are  undoubtedly 
closely  connected  with  Asia  Minor,  but  what  has  been 
just  said  would  explain  that  also.  (3)  The  warning 
contained  in  the  chapter  (vers.  17-20)  against  false 
teachers  is  thought  to  be  more  appropriate  to  Ephesus 
than  to  Rome.  On  the  whole,  this  theory  does  not 
commend  itself  very  much  to  our  judgment,  nor  is  it  in 
any  way  made  clearer  by  the  textual  differences  above 
referred  to.  These  seem  in  some  way  to  have  been 
due  to  Marcion,  and  the  variety  of  the  position  of  the 
Doxology  is  probably  to  be  thus  explained.  There  is 
no  sufficient  reason  for  cutting  off  even  the  final 
chapter    from    the    epistle,    though    no    matter   at    all 


loo     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

affecting  the  thought  of  the  letter  would  be  altered  by 
such  a  course  of  action  were  sufficient  probability  to 
be  discovered  for  adopting  it. 

The  constitution  of  the  Church  at  Rome  has  been  a 
matter  of  considerable  controversy,  but,  on  the  whole, 
the  evidence  seems  to  point  clearly  to  its  being  of  the 
same  mixed  character  as  most  of  the  other  churches  to 
which  Paul's  epistles  were  written ;  that  is  to  say,  it  con- 
tained both  Jewish  and  Gentile  members,  and  though 
there  are  parts  of  this  epistle  that  seem  very  distinctly 
bearing  upon  Jewish  life  and  thought,  they  are  so 
written  as  to  be  quite  applicable  to  Jews  who  formed 
part  of  a  church  the  majority  of  whose  members  were 
Gentiles. 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  discuss  the  question  of 
the  origin  of  the  Church  at  Rome,  though  that  is  in 
itself  a  very  interesting  problem,  because  the  letter  itself 
is  sufficient  witness  that  a  Christian  community  did 
exist  there,  and  to  this  Paul  addresses  himself. 

The  time  in  Paul's  life  at  which  this  letter  was  written 
appears  to  be  that  described  in  Acts  xx.  2,  3.  It  was 
soon  after  the  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians ;  on  the 
occasion,  indeed,  of  his  third  visit  to  that  city.  He  is 
in  the  hope  of  soon  visiting  the  capital,  his  intention 


ROMANS  loi 


being  that  after  he  has  taken  the  gifts  of  the  various 
churches  to  Jerusalem,  he  should  proceed  directly  to 
Rome  and  the  West.  We  are  aware  how  this  design 
was  frustrated  by  his  enemies  in  Jerusalem,  and  how  it 
was  only  after  an  interval  of  two  years  that  he  reached 
the  city  as  a  prisoner.  The  date  of  the  letter  is,  there- 
fore, in  or  about  the  year  58. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  has  a  somewhat  different 
character  from  the  rest  of  Paul's  letters,  inasmuch  as  it 
partakes  more  of  the  nature  of  a  treatise  than  of  a  letter. 
It  is,  however,  true  that  the  real  letter  element  is  not 
absent  from  the  work,  and  we  can  understand  that  Paul 
had  got  his  information  about  the  condition  of  the 
Church  at  Rome  from  numerous  friends  who  had  visited 
it,  or  from  actual  members  of  the  Church  who  were 
personally  known  to  him.  It  seems  as  if  the  great 
problems  that  concern  the  community  were  those  of 
Faith,  in  its  Jewish  interpretation,  and  the  aspects  it 
assumed  in  the  teaching  of  Paul.  We  learn  from  the 
close  of  Acts  that  these  were  the  questions  discussed 
by  him  and  his  fellow-countrymen  on  the  occasion  of 
his  visit  to  Rome,  and  that  helps  us  to  understand  the 
prominent  place  occupied  by  these  subjects  in  this 
letter.     It   deals   with  them  in  a   more   leisurely   and 


ro2     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

reasoned  fashion  than  does  the  Galatian  letter,  and  we 
can  see  how  reflection  upon  past  controversies  has 
enabled  the  writer  in  some  ways  to  make  his  positions 
clear,  and  to  relate  them  to  other  problems.  It  is  not 
so  much  a  compendium  of  Christian  doctrine  as  it  is  a 
discussion  of  the  nature  of  faith  in  relation  to  righteous- 
ness, (i)  as  the  gift  of  God  bestowed  upon  us  in  Christ, 
and  (2)  as  the  fruit  of  the  new  life  wrought  in  us  by  the 
spirit  of  Christ.  The  strong  contrast  that  is  thus  in- 
volved with  the  righteousness  that  was  thought  to  be 
attainable  through  the  law,  involves  Paul  in  the  discus- 
sion of  the  position  of  Israel  to  this  new  righteousness 
offered  to  all  men  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  gives  him  the 
opportunity  of  working  out  his  splendid  vindication  of 
the  Divine  purpose  with  regard  to  his  own  people,  and 
for  the  setting  forth  of  his  own  philosophy  of  history. 
The  twelfth  and  thirteenth  chapters  contain  fine  practical 
teaching  on  the  Christian  life  as  expressed  in  the  indi- 
vidual, the  Church,  and  the  State. 

EPHESIANS 

This  is  the  first  of  the  letters  generally  known  as  the 
epistles  of  the  captivity,  though  that  captivity  has  been 
understood  by  some  as  Paul's  confinement  at  Ccesarea, 


EPHESIANS  103 

and  by  others  as  that  in  Rome.  In  each  of  the  four 
letters  he  describes  himself  as  a  prisoner  {cf.  Eph.  iii.  i ; 
iv.  i;  vi.  20;  Col.  iv.  18;  Philem.  10,  13;  Phil.  i.  7, 
13),  but  as  one  who  had  possessed  a  good  deal  of 
freedom,  a  state  of  things  which  is  in  agreement  with 
what  we  are  told  in  Acts  xxviii.  30.  Some  have  argued 
that  Caesarea  was  more  easily  reached  from  Asia  Minor 
than  was  Rome,  and,  therefore,  that  the  runaway  slave 
Onesimus  might  choose  that  city  as  a  refuge.  But  the 
Rome  of  that  period,  like  the  London  of  to-day,  was 
the  best  hiding-place  for  all  who  sought  to  escape 
justice;  and  here  again,  Rome  better  suits  the  con- 
ditions. Many  references  in  the  letters  also  point  to 
a  life  at  the  centre  of  things  rather  than  in  a  far-off 
provincial  town  such  as  Caesarea.  We  may  take  it, 
then,  as  pretty  generally  agreed  that  the  four  letters 
now  to  be  considered  were  written  during  the  period 
of  Paul's  first  imprisonment  in  Rome,  probably  between 
the  years  61  and  63,  though  the  earlier  chronology 
advocated  by  Harnack  makes  the  Roman  imprisonment 
date  from  57  to  59.  The  majority  of  scholars,  how- 
ever, favour  the  later  date.  In  characterising  the  whole 
of  these  letters,  the  present  writer  may  quote  words 
he  has  written  elsewhere :  "  All  the  letters  that  belong 

H 


I04     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  this  period  of  the  Apostle's  career  are  marked  by  a 
tenderness  of  personal  feeling  and  a  warmth  of  intimate 
regard.  There  is  a  freedom  from  the  more  bitter 
controversy  of  an  earlier  time,  and  from  the  need 
to  rebuke  vicious  excesses.  The  sterner  tone  occurs 
rather  through  warning  than  through  reproof.  There 
is  no  more  beautiful  letter  than  that  to  the  Philippians, 
and  no  profounder  or  more  highly  sustained  passages 
than  some  in  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  while  the 
unique  features  of  the  letter  to  Philemon  make  it  a 
priceless  gem."     (Century  Bible,  Eph.  p.  lo.) 

In  turning  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  the  first 
question  that  meets  us  is  whether  that  title  is  correct. 
Some  of  our  oldest  authorities  do  not  have  the  words 
"at  Ephesus"  at  all,  and  several  early  Christian 
writers,  in  discussing  the  passage,  omit  all  reference 
to  them,  while  TertuUian  tells  us  that  another  title 
was  known,  namely,  "to  the  Laodiceans."  Such  a 
letter  does  exist  in  a  number  of  Latin  manuscripts, 
and  was  known  to  early  Greek  writers,  for  its  name 
occurs  in  the  Mur.  Canon ;  but  the  form  in  which  we 
now  possess  it  is  certainly  a  forgery,  for  it  consists 
of  nothing  but  extracts  of  Pauline  phrases  strung 
together  from  other  epistles,  and  was  no  doubt  com- 


EPHESIANS  105 

posed  to  meet  the  reference  to  such  a  letter  in 
Colossians  iv.  16.  A  more  reasonable  theory  is  that 
the  letter  we  are  now  dealing  with  was  the  letter 
therein  referred  to,  and  the  best  way  of  explaining 
the  fact  is  to  suppose  that  the  so-called  Ephesian 
letter  was  'really  a  circular  one  sent  to  all  the  churches 
in  that  district,  including,  of  course,  Ephesus.  It  is 
possible  that  various  copies  of  the  letter  were  made, 
and  the  name  of  each  church  inserted  in  the  copy 
sent  to  that  particular  city,  though  it  is  more  pro- 
bable that  only  one  copy  was  sent  with  no  name 
originally  given  in  it,  and  that  at  a  later  time  the 
name  of  the  metropolitan  church  of  Ephesus  crept 
into  the  document.  This  would  also  meet  the  diffi- 
culty that  has  been  felt  with  regard  to  this  letter, 
namely,  that  there  are  no  personal  greetings  in  it  to 
his  own  friends,  and  that  there  is  lacking  to  some 
extent  the  note  of  intimacy  that  we  might  expect  in 
writing  to  a  church  so  well  known  to  the  Apostle  as 
was  that  at  Ephesus.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  many 
are  inclined  to  assign  the  whole  or  part  of  Romans  xvi. 
to  this  epistle  (see  above,  p.  99). 

As  regards   external  evidence   for  the  epistle,   we 
find    in    the    New    Testament    itself   many    points   of 


io6     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

contact  between  this  letter  and  I.  Peter  (see  e.g.  i. 
20-22;  cf.  with  I.  Peter  iii.  22,  and,  again,  iii.  5,  10 
with  I.  Peter  i.  10-12).  As  in  the  case  of  Romans, 
Ephesians  seems  to  be  the  earlier  of  the  two  letters. 
There  are  also  many  resemblances  between  this  epistle 
and  the  Fourth  Gospel,  mainly  in  John,  chapters  i., 
iii.,  and  xvii.  It  seems  likely  that  this  epistle  formed 
a  stepping-stone  between  the  earlier  Pauline  doctrine 
of  Christ  and  that  doctrine  which  is  found  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel;  and  when  we  remember  that  both 
writings  are  associated  with  Ephesus,  we  have  some 
indication  of  the  reason  of  the  resemblance.  Of  the 
close  connection  between  this  letter  and  that  to  the 
Colossians  we  shall  say  more  in  the  discussion  of  the 
latter  epistle.  In  the  sub-apostolic  writers,  we  have 
not  more  than  traces  of  the  language  of  this  letter, 
and  even  Ignatius  when  he  writes  to  the  Church  at 
pLphesus  does  not  mention  this  letter  by  name,  nor 
does  he  definitely  quote  it;  but  there  is  one  difficult 
phrase  in  chapter  xii.  of  his  letter  where,  addressing 
the  Ephesians,  he  says  they  are  fellow-initiates  of 
Paul's  in  the  mystery  of  the  Gospel,  and  then  says 
that  Paul  makes  mention  of  them  "in  every  epistle." 
What  this  means  is  not  clear,  but  it  is  certainly  striking 


EPHESIANS  107 

that  he  does  not  make  special  mention  of  what  he 
says  to  them  in  this  epistle,  if  Ignatius  considered 
Ephesians  to  be  confined  to  that  community.  Irenaeus, 
of  course,  attributes  it  to  the  Apostle,  as  does  the 
Mur.  Canon. 

It  is  when  we  turn  to  the  question  of  the  internal 
evidence  that  scholars  have  most  to  say  against  the 
Pauline  authorship  of  the  epistle.  Some  of  the  argu- 
ments are  based  upon  the  peculiarity  of  the  Greek 
words  employed,  or  of  the  Greek  constructions  used. 
The  difficulties  that  certainly  exist  on  both  these 
points  are  not,  however,  insuperable  when  we  re- 
collect the  difference  of  subject-matter  in  many  parts 
of  the  letter,  and  the  development  that  may  very 
well  have  taken  place  in  Paul's  thought  and  style 
during  the  interval  that  elapsed  between  Romans 
and  this  letter.  Further  objections  are  raised  with 
regard  to  the  thought  of  the  epistle.  It  is  said  that 
the  doctrine  about  the  law  and  about  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ  is  very  different  from  that  of  the 
earlier  letters,  but  it  can  be  fairly  answered  that  the 
circumstances  account  for  this.  New  problems  have 
arisen  in  new  surroundings,  and  what  is  more  in  evi- 
dence here  are  the  speculative  heresies  of  that  district 


io8     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  Asia  Minor,  whereby  men  were  tempted  to  look 
for  other  mediatorial  agencies  than  Christ  Himself,  to 
pay  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  the  doctrine  of  angels, 
and  to  regard  Christ  as  one  among  many  means  of 
approach  to  God,  even  if  He  was  the  highest  and 
best.  Surely  the  Apostle  is  at  liberty  to  vary  the 
emphasis  of  his  thought  if  he  says  nothing  that  is 
necessarily  contradictory  to  the  positions  maintained 
elsewhere  in  his  writings.  Finally,  the  main  difficulty 
centres  round  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  The 
statement  in  ii.  20,  that  the  Church  is  built  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  is  felt  to  be 
difficult  if  the  letter  is  as  early  as  Paul's  lifetime. 
The  verse  is,  however,  capable  of  more  than  one 
interpretation  (see  the  commentaries).  But  even  if 
the  most  obvious  meaning  is  taken  to  be  the  correct 
one,  Paul  might  very  well  have  made  that  statement, 
seeing  that  he  elsewhere  lays  great  emphasis  upon 
both  Apostles  and  Prophets  (cf.  I.  Cor.  xii.  28  and 
Eph.  iv.  11).  The  passage  in  iii.  5  presents  an 
additional  difficulty,  inasmuch  as  it  seems  to  imply 
that  the  whole  question  of  the  inclusion  of  the 
Gentiles  had  been  spiritually  revealed  to  all  the 
Apostles.     This  seems  to  disregard  the  great  work  of 


COLOSSIANS  109 

Paul's  life,  but  he  may  either  be  speaking  in  the 
most  general  language,  or  else  referring  to  the  im- 
pression his  own  arguments  had  made  upon  his 
opponents.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  there  are  not 
sufficiently  strong  arguments  to  be  adduced  to  over- 
throw the  general  witness  of  Christian  tradition  that 
the  epistle  is  the  work  of  the  Apostle.  Its  beauty 
and  lofty  speculation  have  impressed  all  classes  of 
commentators,  and  Coleridge  was  no  doubt  right  when 
he  described  it  as  "one  of  the  divinest  compositions 
of  man."  In  this  letter,  more  clearly  than  in  any 
other,  does  he  set  forth  Christ  as  the  head  and  centre 
of  the  universe,  subject  only  to  God  the  Father,  and 
the  Church  of  Christ  as  universal  and  catholic,  in- 
cluding all  who  believe  on  Him. 

COLOSSIANS 

This  letter  was  written  to  one  of  the  churches  which, 
so  far  as  we  know,  Paul  had  never  visited.  It  was  pro- 
bably founded  by  Epaphras  during  the  time  of  Paul's 
residence  at  Ephesus.  Paul  may  even  (see  iv.  10) 
have  written  an  earlier  letter  to  the  Church.  This 
one  was  called  out  by  difficulties  and  dangers  of  false 
teaching,  to  which  they  had  been  exposed,  and  was  sent 


no     BOOKS    OF   NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  the  community  at  the  hands  of  Tychicus,  who  was 
accompanied  by  Onesimus,  of  whom  we  shall  hear  more 
in  the  next  letter. 

The  external  evidence  for  this  letter  is  fairly  strong. 
Nothing  but  echoes  of  its  words  are  found  earlier  than 
Marcion,  who  included  it  in  his  list.  It  is  named  as 
usual  by  Irenaeus,  and  the  Muratorian  Canon.  Like 
Ephesians,  it  has  been  strongly  assailed  on  internal 
grounds.  Some  have  endeavoured  to  accept  parts  of 
the  letter,  and  reject  other  parts,  but  this  theory  does 
not  find  much  favour,  nor  is  it  very  probable.  The 
obvious  close  connection  of  this  letter  with  Philemon 
goes  a  long  way  to  confirm  its  genuineness.  The  main 
difficulties  that  have  been  felt  concerning  it  are  similar 
to  those  raised  with  regard  to  the  Ephesian  letter,  and 
can  be  answered  in  the  same  way.  A  careful  com- 
parison with  the  Ephesian  letter  makes  it  seem  possible 
that  this  may  have  been  the  earlier  of  the  two,  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  Paul  may  only  have  confined  himself  in 
this  letter  to  certain  aspects  of  subjects  which  were  dealt 
with  more  fully  in  the  longer  epistle,  and  the  letters 
must  have  been  written  so  close  together  that  it  is  hardly 
worth  while  to  spend  much  time  discussing  which  was 
composed  first. 


PHILEMON  III 


The  main  aspects  of  the  false  teaching  with  which  the 
epistle  is  concerned  are  those  of  ritual  and  of  asceti- 
cism. To  a  certain  extent  they  may  be  thought  to  be 
Jewish,  and  this  is  further  supported  by  the  frequent 
references  to  angels  throughout  the  epistle,  an  advanced 
doctrine  of  angels  being  a  feature  of  later  Judaism.  It 
is  interesting  to  think  that  Paul  is  still  face  to  face  with 
the  dangerous  tendencies  of  the  Judaisers,  though  their 
point  of  attack  is  now  a  different  one  from  that  em- 
ployed in  the  earlier  churches  of  Galatia.  Paul  has  the 
same  answer  for  them  that  he  has  for  the  Ephesians. 
It  is  in  Christ,  and  Christ  alone,  that  all  solutions  to 
problems  of  thought  and  practice  are  to  be  found. 


PHILEMON 

This  beautiful  little  letter  stands  unique  among  the 
generally  accepted  letters  of  the  Apostle.  We  know 
little  more  about  the  persons  named  in  it  than  the 
letter  itself  tells  us,  except  from  the  allusions  found  in 
the  contemporary  letter  to  Colossse.  We  need  hardly 
expect  to  find  much  external  evidence  for  the  epistle, 
nor  do  we  find  any  definite  trace  of  it  till  we  come 
to  the  Canon  of  Marcion  and  the  Muratorian  Canon. 


112     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

In  this  case  TertuUian  is  the  first  who  distinctly  notices 
it.  Of  course,  the  comparative  neglect  of  the  letter  in 
these  early  days  would  arise  from  the  fact  that  it  con- 
tained nothing  of  a  doctrinal  character. 

The  circumstances  of  its  origin  are  sufficiently  clear 
from  the  letter  itself,  and  that  Paul  should  thus  befriend 
a  runaway  slave,  and  plead  for  his  restoration  with  such 
exquisite  tenderness  and  courtesy,  has  by  all  classes  of 
writers  been  felt  to  reveal  a  very  fine  side  of  his  char- 
acter. That  Onesimus  had  become  Paul's  convert  there 
can  be  no  question,  and  he  had  also  become  loved  as 
a  brother,  and  in  his  gratitude  had  rendered  himself 
almost  indispensable  to  the  Apostle.  With  great  un- 
selfishness, however,  Paul  sends  him  back  to  his  own 
master,  and  makes  himself  answerable  for  any  incon- 
venience or  loss  to  which  Philemon  may  have  been 
exposed. 

The  permanent  significance  of  the  letter  lies  in  its 
being  the  first  document  that  deals  with  slavery  from 
the  Christian  point  of  view.  Paul  does  not  write  an 
abolitionist  pamphlet,  but  presents  the  necessary  solvent 
of  slavery  in  the  doctrine  of  universal  brotherhood  in 
Christ  Jesus.  It  is  thus  right  on  the  part  of  Sabatier  to 
say  that  it  is  "  an  invaluable  document  of  the  Pauline 


PHILIPPIANS  113 

ethics."  "We  delight  to  meet  it,"  he  continues,  "on 
our  toilsome  road,  and  to  rest  awhile  with  Paul  from  his 
great  controversies  and  fatiguing  labours  in  this  refresh- 
ing oasis  which  Christian  friendship  offered  to  him. 
We  are  accustomed  to  conceive  of  the  Apostle  as  always 
armed  for  warfare,  sheathed  in  logic,  and  bristling  with 
argument.  It  is  delightful  to  find  him  at  his  ease,  and 
for  a  moment  able  to  unbend,  engaged  in  this  friendly 
intercourse,  so  full  of  freedom  and  even  playfulness." 


PHILIPPIANS 

There  are  few  more  striking  stories  in  the  Book  of 
Acts  than  the  account  in  chapter  xvi.  of  the  introduction 
of  the  Gospel  to  Philippi.  Apart  from  the  dramatic 
nature  of  the  circumstances  of  the  mission,  there  is  the 
great  significance  that  attaches  to  it  as  being  the  first 
work  carried  on  by  the  Apostle  in  Europe.  The  second 
visit  of  which  we  have  certain  knowledge  is  related 
in  Acts  XX.  6 ;  and  this  letter  itself  reveals  to  us  the 
intimate  and  loving  terms  on  which  he  stood  with 
the  members  of  that  Church.  From  them  he  does  not 
hesitate  to  accept  gifts,  and  members  of  the  Church 
seem   to  be  among  his  most   welcome   visitors.     The 


114     BOOKS    OF    NEW   TESTAMENT 

Philippians  are  his  "brethren  beloved,  his  joy  and 
crown." 

The  external  evidence  for  the  epistle  begins  very 
early,  for  Polycarp  in  his  letter  to  the  same  Church 
refers  to  Paul's  having  written  to  them,  and  we  are 
told  that  the  early  heretics  of  the  second  century 
knew  and  used  it.  The  letter  from  the  churches  of 
Lyons  and  Vienne  mentions  it,  and  it  is  included  in 
the  Canon  of  Marcion  and  the  Muratorian  Canon,  as 
well  as  accepted  by  Irenaeus. 

The  internal  evidence  is  no  less  strong.  The 
personal  revelation  of  Paul's  character,  the  style  and 
language,  and  the  obvious  naturalness  of  the  whole  com- 
position bear  sufficient  testimony  that  the  traditional 
authorship  is  the  true  one.  Even  very  advanced 
scholars  of  the  present  day  are  convinced  of  that  fact. 
Some,  however,  think  that  one  or  more  letters  have 
been  combined  in  this  one,  the  main  argument  for 
which  position  is  derived  from  iii.  i.  The  word  trans- 
lated "  finally "  can,  however,  bear  other  meanings, 
and  the  words  "to  write  the  same  things,"  even  if 
they  do  not  refer  to  the  immediate  context,  may  refer 
to  some  letter  that  has  been  lost.  At  any  rate,  the 
attempts  that  have  been  made  to  reconstruct  two  or 


PHILIPPIANS 


115 


more  letters  out  of  the  existing  one  are  not  sufficiently 
in  agreement  to  be  convincing. 

The  letter  as  a  whole  is  marked  by  great  naturalness. 
Perhaps  no  letter  of  Paul's  is  more  obviously  a  genuine 
letter  than  is  this  one.  As  Dr.  Kennedy  says :  "  He 
feels  thoroughly  at  home  with  his  readers.  Thoughts 
crowd  in  upon  him  as  he  writes.  His  reminiscences 
of  Philippi  supply  secret  links  of  connection  between 
paragraphs  which  might  seem  isolated  from  one  another, 
links  of  connection  which  we  can  no  longer  trace." 
A  further  characteristic  note  of  the  letter  is  its  joy- 
fulness.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  when  we  realise 
the  conditions  under  which  it  was  written.  He  was 
not  only  a  prisoner,  but  a  prisoner  with  a  probability 
of  death  always  before  him,  but  he  has  the  secret  of 
gladness  in  the  constant  and  near  presence  of  his  Lord, 
whose  advent  he  awaits  with  patient  hope,  and  to 
attain  to  a  share  in  the  power  of  His  resurrection  is 
the  aim  of  his  ambition. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  PASTORAL   EPISTLES 

The  three  remaining  letters  attributed  to  Paul  are 
generally  classified  under  the  title  of  pastorals,  because 
they  deal  with  the  subject  of  the  ministry,  and  are 
addressed  to  two  pastors,  Timothy  and  Titus.  They 
have  much  in  common,  so  that  before  dealing  with 
each  of  them  individually,  there  are  many  questions 
which  can  best  be  discussed  with  relation  to  the  whole 
group.  The  first  of  these  is  the  historical  situation 
presupposed  in  the  letters.  Recent  attempts  have  been 
made  to  find  a  place  for  the  letters  in  the  account 
of  Paul's  life  given  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  It  is  sug- 
gested that  I.  Timothy  was  written  immediately  after 
Paul's  leaving  Miletus  (see  Acts  xx.  38),  in  order  to  sup- 
plement the  instructions  then  delivered  to  Timothy, 
while  the  letter  to  Titus  is  dated  from  Rome  after  the 

voyage,  the  visit  to  Crete  referred  to  in  Titus  i.  5  being 

J16 


THE    PASTORAL    EPISTLES      117 

that  which  occurred  during  the  voyage  recorded  in  Acts. 
IL  Timothy  would  then  be  a  little  later  than  Philip- 
pians,  just  on  the  eve  of  Paul's  execution.  A  great 
difficulty  that  attaches  to  such  a  theory  is  the  impos- 
sibility of  explaining  how  the  letters  of  the  captivity 
above  described  could  have  been  inserted  between 
Titus  and  IL  Timothy  without  any  obvious  influence 
upon  them  of  the  style  found  in  the  pastoral  letters. 
Nor  can  we  find  any  better  reason  for  accepting  the 
theory  that  Paul  writes  at  one  time  to  a  church,  and 
at  another  to  an  individual,  and  uses  perfectly  different 
language,  and  adopts  a  perfectly  different  attitude.  As 
Dr.  Horton  puts  it,  by  such  an  assumption  "we  may 
gain  the  pastorals,  but  we  lose  Paul." 

The  position  generally  assumed  is  to  suppose  that 
after  the  letter  to  the  Philippians  was  written,  Paul 
escaped  from  his  imprisonment  in  Rome,  and  con- 
tinued his  activities  in  the  East  for  some  time  before 
he  was  again  arrested,  and  underwent  another  imprison- 
ment that  culminated  in  his  execution.  Some  refer- 
ences in  early  Christian  writers  support  the  view  that 
he  travelled  farther  west  than  Rome,  but  we  have  no 
definite  evidence  of  his  ministry  during  the  period 
except  what  is  given  us  in  the  letters  now  under  con- 


ii8     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

sideration.  I.  Timothy  seems  to  speak  of  a  journey 
in  Asia  Minor  and  Europe,  from  which  latter  place 
perhaps  he  writes  the  letter.  According  to  the  Epistle 
to  Titus,  he  had  travelled  with  the  pastor  in  Crete, 
and  writes  to  him  probably  from  Corinth.  II.  Timothy 
would  then  reveal  to  us  the  conditions  of  the  last 
imprisonment,  where  he  is  in  loneliness,  and  is  eager 
for  the  presence  of  Timothy,  and  for  the  possession 
of  some'  of  his  most  valued  belongings.  It  is  difficult, 
however,  to  employ  the  testimony  of  epistles,  which 
we  shall  see  are  themselves  in  question,  for  the  con- 
struction of  a  history  for  which  we  have  practically 
no  other  basis.  All  that  Christian  tradition  definitely 
affirms  is  that  the  execution  of  Paul  took  place  near 
Rome,  but  we  have  no  independent  evidence  of  its 
date,  nor  of  the  exact  circumstances  that  led  up  to  it. 
It  is  quite  likely  that  some  elements  of  genuine  tradi- 
tion are  to  be  found  in  the  pastoral  letters,  particularly 
in  II.  Timothy,  but  present  knowledge  does  not  justify 
us  in  reconstructing  what  are  called  the  last  journeys 
of  Paul  upon  the  slight  foundations  that  these  letters 
themselves  afford. 

The  second  point  of  difficulty  is  in  the  character  of 
Timothy  as  given  in  these  letters.     Much  that  is  said 


THE    PASTORAL    EPISTLES      119 

of  him,  while  perfectly  appropriate  in  the  case  of  a 
young  and  untried  convert,  is  difficult  to  associate  with 
a  man  who  for  many  years  had  been  Paul's  friend  and 
fellow-worker.  One  would  suppose  that  those  years  of 
fellowship  might  not  only  have  given  Timothy  a  most 
intimate  knowledge  of  Paul's  own  ideas  and  methods 
of  work,  but  would  not  have  necessitated  the  frequent 
references  to  Timothy's  inexperience  and  timidity,  nor 
would  it  have  been  requisite  for  Paul  to  adopt,  so 
often  as  he  does,  the  tone  of  self-defence  on  the  matter 
of  his  apostleship.  However  much  such  a  defence  is 
in  place  when  writing  to  a  community,  many  among 
whom  challenge  the  claim,  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that 
one  of  his  best  friends  who  had  frequently  been  associated 
with  him  in  writing  letters  to  these  communities  should 
require  the  same  assurance.  In  the  case  of  Titus  the 
difficulties  are  not  so  great,  but  we  know  so  little  of  the 
circumstances  that  it  is  not  very  safe  to  argue  either  way 
from  the  mere  contents  of  the  short  letter  written  to  him. 
The  third  difficulty  is  connected  with  the  developed 
organisation  of  the  churclies.  It  is  true  that  no  new 
title  is  introduced,  for  we  have  read  of  bishops,  pres- 
byters, deacons,  women  workers,  and  widows  both  in 

Acts  and  in  the  earlier  letters  of  Paul.     But  there  are 

I 


120     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

some  points  in  the  directions  about  these  various  classes 
which  are  novel.  The  position  of  the  Apostle  seems 
rather  more  authoritative  than  in  the  earlier  letters. 
The  bishop  has  a  more  influential  position,  both  in  the 
churches  and  towards  outsiders,  than  we  find  described 
in  any  earlier  work,  and  some  of  his  duties,  such  as  the 
entertaining  of  travelling  brethren,  and  the  care  of  the 
churches'  finances,  seem  new.  In  I.  Timothy  we  find 
that  he  has  commission  to  ordain  ministers,  and  to  hand 
on  the  apostolic  tradition,  but  how  far  the  directions 
apply  only  to  Timothy  or  are  a  general  description  of  every 
bishopric  is  not  clear.  It  seems  pretty  certain  that  the 
bishop  and  the  presbyter  are  one  and  the  same  person, 
though  some  writers  think  that  in  these  epistles  we  have 
already  the  traces  of  the  practice  of  the  second  century, 
which  separated  the  two  offices.  The  deacons  have  not 
only  financial  work  to  do,  but  also  teaching,  and  if  they 
execute  their  duties  well,  may  hope  to  rise  to  a  higher 
position.  Whether  the  women  named  are  the  wives  of 
deacons  or  a  separate  class  of  deaconesses  is  not  certain. 
The  widows,  who  have  already  been  mentioned  in 
Romans  and  I.  Cor.,  and  the  care  of  whom  has  been 
spoken  of  in  Acts  vi.  i  and  ix.  39,  appear  in  these  let- 
ters as  a  separate  class.     We  know  that  at  a  later  time 


THE    PASTORAL    EPISTLES      121 

widows  constituted  a  distinct  order  in  the  Christian 
community,  and  the  beginning  of  that  state  of  affairs 
seems  to  be  traceable  in  these  epistles.  It  is  not,  of 
course,  impossible  that  such  developments  may  have 
taken  place  even  during  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostle,  and 
it  may  be  argued  that  the  letters  of  the  captivity  which 
we  have  already  considered  have  so  little  to  say  about 
Church  organisation  that  the  growth  shown  in  the 
pastoral  epistles  may  have  been  slowly  progressing  all 
the  while.  But  when  we  turn  to  the  literature  of  the 
second  century,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Church 
order  herein  described  seems  a  most  natural  stepping- 
stone  between  that  of  the  earlier  Pauline  letters  and  the 
Church  of  forty  or  fifty  years  later. 

A  further  difficulty,  and  a  very  serious  one,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  vocabulary  and  style  of  these  letters.  To 
appreciate  this  properly  it  is  necessary  to  examine  the 
question  in  the  original,  but  some  points  can  be  put 
quite  simply.  The  average  of  new  words  is  very  high, 
and  a  peculiar  feature  of  the  matter  is  not  only  that 
different  words  are  employed  than  what  are  found  in 
other  letters — for  this  would  not  be  of  much  importance — 
but  that  words  not  elsewhere  used  by  Paul  are  common 
in  these  letters,  and  where  he  uses  different  expressions 


122     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

for  the  same  idea  in  his  other  letters,  these  do  not 
occur  In  the  pastorals,  and  the  phrase  employed  in 
them  is  common  to  them  all.  Some  of  the  best  known 
expressions  are  "profitable,"  "godliness,"  "sound  doc- 
trine," "faithful  saying,"  "come  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth,"  &c.  (the  English  reader  will  find  all  these 
words  and  many  others  carefully  noted  in  Dr.  Hor- 
ton's  commentary  in  the  Century  Bible).  Many  of  the 
phrases  occur  with  such  frequency,  and  are  so  stereo- 
typed, that  they  do  not  appear  to  have  the  freshness 
and  vigour  of  Paul's  general  writing. 

It  will  certainly  appear  to  many  that  in  spite  of 
these  and  other  difficulties  that  exist,  the  authorship 
of  the  epistles  is  settled  by  the  definite  claim  made 
by  each  of  them  to  be  written  by  the  Apostle.  It  is 
to  most  modern  readers  inconceivable  that  such  a 
claim  can  mean  anything  else  than  authenticity  or 
forgery,  and  so  a  word  may  here  be  said  upon  the 
whole  question  of  pseudonymity  in  ancient  writings. 
Whatever  decision  we  may  arrive  at  with  regard  to 
the  pastoral  epistles,  the  question  of  pseudonymous 
writings  must  face  us,  in  the  case  at  least  of  II.  Peter. 
The  practice  was  very  common  among  Jewish  writers 
to   produce   a  book  under  the  name  of  some  famous 


THE    PASTORAL    EPISTLES      123 

man  of  an  earlier  day,  as  e.g.  in  the  case  of  Ecclesi- 
astes  and  the  Song  of  Songs  (see  the  present  writer's 
commentary  on  these  books  in  the  Century  Bible). 
Many  of  the  later  non-canonical  books  are  written  in 
the  name  of  great  teachers  such  as  Moses,  Isaiah, 
Enoch,  and  others,  and  the  theory  was  that  the  writer 
was  too  humble  to  claim  authority  for  his  own  work, 
and  so  wrote  under  the  shadow  of  a  great  name, 
being  himself  in  sympathy  with  the  teaching  of  his 
famous  predecessor.  This  was  a  practice  which  obtained 
to  some  extent  among  the  schools  of  Greek  philo- 
sophy as  well  as  among  the  Hebrews.  In  many  cases 
the  names  chosen  were  those  of  men  who  had  lived 
so  long  before  the  writer's  time,  that  there  could 
be  no  possibility  of  misunderstanding,  but  sometimes 
the  names  of  practical  contemporaries  were  chosen, 
as  seems  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  the  spurious  letters  of 
Ignatius,  the  so-called  Second  Epistle  of  Clement,  and 
other  works.  It  is  quite  possible,  therefore,  that  with 
no  evil  intention  or  purpose  of  leading  readers  astray, 
the  name  of  the  great  Apostle  may  have  been  used 
by  some  of  his  friends  and  followers  who  were  anxious 
to  further  his  work,  promulgate  his  ideas,  and  in  all 


124     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

probability,  find  a  hearing  for  teaching  that  they  knew 
was  derived  from  himself  in  letters  that,  in  their  present 
form  at  least,  do  not  emanate  from  him  at  all.  As 
we  shall  see,  when  we  consider  the  epistles  in  detail, 
many  attempts  have  been  made  to  pick  out  the 
sections  that  are  genuinely  Pauline  from  those  which 
are  due  to  the  later  writer,  but  the  task  is  not  an 
easy  one,  for  different  scholars  regard  it  in  entirely 
opposite  lights,  some  considering  the  autobiographical 
portions  to  be  undoubtedly  genuine,  and  others  picking 
these  out  as  the  undoubted  mark  of  artistic  imita- 
tion. The  present  writer  is  inclined  to  the  view  that 
11.  Timothy  possesses  the  largest  amount  of  genuine 
Pauline  material,  and  is  the  earliest  of  the  three,  but 
that  it  is  a  hopeless  task  to  endeavour  to  sort  out 
sections  which  are  genuinely  Pauline  from  those  which 
belong  to  a  later  hand,  and  that  the  most  probable 
theory  of  the  epistles  is  that  some  writer  or  writers 
intimately  acquainted  with  the  Apostle's  thought  and 
practice  prepared  these  epistles  for  the  generation  that 
succeeded  him,  in  order  to  preserve  what  was  known 
among  his  friends  as  to  his  views  on  Church  life  and 
organisation,  and  attached  to  them  the  names  of  two 
of  his  most  famous  disciples. 


L    TIMOTHY  125 


I.  TIMOTHY 

The  external  evidence  for  this  epistle  is  pretty 
strong.  It  is  attributed  to  Paul  by  Iren^us  and  in 
the  Mun  Can.  Marcion  knew  it,  but  knew  it  only 
to  reject  it  with  the  other  pastoral  letters.  It  was 
rejected  also  by  Tatian,  and  by  certain  heretical  writers. 
Why  they  were  so  rejected  is  not  clearly  known. 
Earlier  references  are  supposed  to  be  found  to  the 
letter  in  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  and  even  Clement  of 
Rome,  but  these  are  very  doubtful,  and  are  much 
more  likely  to  be  references  to  a  similar  class  of 
ideas  found  in  the  common  literature,  though  the 
coincidences  between  one  passage  of  Polycarp  and 
I.  Timothy  are  very  striking. 

Of  the  general  difficulties  that  attach  to  the  internal 
evidence  we  have  already  spoken,  but  we  may  further 
note  the  occurrence  of  the  three  "  faithful  sayings  "  in 
this  epistle,  and  the  long  passage,  rhythmical  in  the 
original,  found  in  iii.  16.  These  various  passages  seem 
like  quotations  of  fixed  liturgical  formulae,  and  in  that 
way  are  different  from  anything  we  find  elsewhere  in 
Paul.  The  letter  shows  a  very  clear  conception  of 
the  importance  of  the  traditional  Gospel,  but  this  is 


126     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

not  a  new  feature  in  Paulinism,  for  the  same  thing 
has  been  found  in  I.  Corinthians,  but  there  is  a  more 
definite  indication  of  a  prophetic  witness  as  regards 
false  teaching  in  iv.  1-4  than  we  find  anywhere  else 
in  Paul,  with  the  exception  of  the  passage  in  II.  Thessa- 
lonians  ii.  The  character  of  the  false  teaching  as 
described  in  i.  7  shows  that  it  is  Jewish  in  its  origin, 
and  the  genealogies  against  which  Timothy  is  warned 
in  the  same  chapter  have  undoubtedly  a  clear  refer- 
ence to  well-known  elements  in  Gnostic  teaching. 
Further,  the  "oppositions"  of  vi.  20,  where  the  word 
is  really  "antitheses,"  may  also  be  a  technical  word  of 
these  heresies,  for  we  know  it  was  the  term  employed 
by  Marcion  in  his  book.  Hort  thinks  it  might  well 
describe  "the  endless  contrast  of  decisions  found  in 
endless  distinctions,"  which  was  a  mark  of  all  such 
teachings.  The  fact  that  the  false  teachers  seem  to 
have  been  practical  ascetics,  and  also  to  have  meddled 
with  magical  arts  (see  II.  Tim.  iii.  13),  in  addition 
to  the  points  named  above,  has  led  many  to  consider 
that  they  were  not  only  Jews,  but  had  a  large  element 
of  Essene  teaching  in  their  philosophy. 

The  general  character  of  Christian  life  described  in 
the  epistle  is  that  of  the  ordered  community,  and  is 


I.    TIMOTHY  127 

quite  in  agreement  with  all  we  know  of  Paul's  earlier 
counsels  to  the  Christian  Churches  of  Corinth  and 
Ephesus,  and  all  that  points  to  a  more  defined  organisa- 
tion is  only  in  agreement  with  the  later  period  to  which 
we  are  inclined  to  assign  the  letter. 

The  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  split  this  letter 
into  two  or  more  have  not  been  very  satisfactory.  One 
condition  that  has  governed  these  endeavours  is  to  take 
the  general  sections  of  the  epistle  as  a  unity,  and  then 
to  suppose  that  all  parts  containing  direct  personal 
references  have  been  introduced  at  a  later  time,  and 
have  thus  altered  what  might  be  a  kind  of  homily,  or 
pastoral  instruction,  into  a  letter.  For  those  who  want 
to  study  this  aspect  of  the  subject  more  thoroughly, 
reference  should  be  made  to  Moffat's  "  Historical  New 
Testament." 

The  permanent  value  of  the  epistle  is  largely  inde- 
pendent of  the  question  of  its  authorship.  Of  course,  if 
we  were  certain  that  it  was  written  by  Paul,  there  would 
rest  an  authority  upon  its  statements  that  may  not  be 
supposed  otherwise  to  inhere  in  them,  but  such  a  view 
is  contrary  to  the  general  trend  of  the  New  Testament, 
where  some  of  the  greatest  books  are  either  anonymous 
or  written  by  comparatively  unimportant  persons.      It 


128     BOOKS    OF   NEW    TESTAMENT 

shows  us,  then,  a  sane  view  of  the  Christian  life,  a  fine 
temper  of  conciliation,  and  yet  an  earnest  missionary 
motive,  a  desire  for  everything  being  done  decently  and 
in  order,  but  yet  a  place  for  the  initiative  of  the  Divine 
Spirit,  and  an  eagerness  to  provide  ready  and  fitting 
channels  for  His  action. 

It  is  impossible  to  fix  a  definite  date  for  this  writing. 
Of  course,  if  it  was  written  by  Paul,  it  would  be  in  some 
period  between  62  and  66,  but  in  the  view  here  taken 
of  it,  it  probably  does  not  belong  to  the  first  century 
at  all,  or,  if  so,  just  to  the  close  of  it,  and  Harnack  is 
of  opinion  that  in  its  present  form  it  is  not  earlier 
than  140.  So  late  a  date  seems  impossible,  owing  to 
the  much  more  advanced  Church  organisation  of  that 
period,  and  it  does  not  seem  at  all  likely  that  the  letter 
dates  from  a  later  time  than  the  days  of  Ignatius,  and  is 
in  all  probability  earlier  than  his  epistles. 

II.   TIMOTHY 

The  external  evidence  for  II.  Timothy  is  practically 
the  same  as  that  for  the  first  epistle,  though  it  is  not  so 
extensive  or  clear.  When  we  turn  to  look  at  the  internal 
evidence  we  have  a  much  more  complicated  problem. 


II.    TIMOTHY  129 

This  letter  is  the  most  personal  of  the  three,  but  the 
very  touch  of  intimacy  increases  our  difficulties.  The 
picture  given  of  Timothy  is  very  hard  to  accept  as 
historically  accurate  if  this  is  really  later  than  the  first 
epistle,  for  he  is  dealt  with  as  a  younger  and  less  strong 
personaHty  than  in  the  first  epistle.  If,  however,  we  are 
right  in  holding  this  letter  to  be  really  the  earlier  one, 
the  difficulty  is  not  so  marked.  The  personal  revelation 
of  Paul's  character  has  much  in  it  that  is  in  agreement 
with  his  earlier  writings,  and  the  reference  in  iii.  11 
to  the  sufferings  in  Galatia  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Timothy's  home  is  very  characteristic.  The  same  diffi- 
culties of  language  occur  in  this  epistle  with  in  some 
ways  greater  force  than  in  the  others,  but  if  this  is  the 
earliest  of  the  three,  then,  of  course,  it  would  set  the 
fashion  for  the  others.  Though  not  so  much  is  said 
as  in  I.  Timothy  about  false  teaching,  two  points  are 
specially  mentioned,  the  magicians  of  III.  13,  which 
points  clearly  to  magical  practices  such  as  were  common 
at  Ephesus,  and  the  reference  to  those  who  held  that 
the  resurrection  was  already  passed  {cf.  I.  Cor.  xv.  12), 
who  are  described  in  ii.  18.  One  noteworthy  passage 
with  reference  to  the  Old  Testament  in  iii.  15,  16,  is 
more  definite  in  its  language  than  anything  found  else- 


I30     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

where  in  Paul.  It  does  not,  however,  go  beyond  the 
implied  theory  of  earlier  passages  in  his  letters.  The 
Revised  Version  translation  gives  the  correct  signifi- 
cance of  the  original,  which  is  descriptive  of  the  effect 
to  be  derived  from  all  inspired  Scripture,  though  the 
passage  does  not  define  what  parts  of  Scripture  are 
inspired ;  and  we  cannot  tell  from  this  section  whether 
the  writer  is  dealing  with  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  Old 
Testament,  the  latter,  of  course,  including  many  books 
that  are  not  in  the  former.  The  letter  contains  a  very 
beautiful  portraiture  of  the  Christian  minister  in  the 
twofold  aspects  of  the  writer  as  a  man  with  his  course 
completed,  and  of  the  ideal  set  before  the  younger 
preacher  with  his  work  largely  before  him.  These 
remain  of  permanent  value  to  all  time,  whatever  decision 
we  may  come  to  with  regard  to  the  authorship.  Many 
personal  friends  of  Paul's  are  mentioned  in  the  epistle, 
some  of  whom  are  known  to  us  through  his  other  letters. 
It  appears  that  in  any  case  the  writer  was  intimate  with 
the  Pauline  circle,  and  we  may  take  it  that  the  letter 
contains  genuine  traditions  of  the  Apostle's  relationship 
to  his  friends. 

The  question  of  date  is  as  difficult  as  in  the  former 
case,  but  this  letter  probably  stands  nearer  to  Paul's 


II.    TIMOTHY  131 

own  lifetime,  and  may  belong  to  the  decade  70 
to  80. 

The  question  of  the  integrity  of  the  letter  has  been 
much  in  dispute.  Some  consider  that  it  contains  two 
letters,  one  running  up  to  iv.  8,  and  perhaps  including 
also  iv.  19-21,  while  the  second  letter  is  the  short 
message  contained  in  iv.  9-18.  This  would  not  be 
difficult  to  believe,  and  would  help  us  to  understand 
some  of  the  problems  that  the  present  letter  contains. 

Others,  with  more  elaboration,  think  that  the  more 
general  section  consisting  of  ii.  14-iii.  9  is  a  separate 
letter,  attributed  by  some  to  the  final  author,  but  chap, 
iv.  9-15  and  19-21  is  a  short  letter  written  during  the 
third  missionary  journey,  and  that  what  remains  of  the 
epistle  is  another  letter,  written  at  the  close  of  the 
Roman  imprisonment.  There  is  one  short  section  at 
the  end  of  the  first  chapter,  consisting  of  vers.  15-18, 
which  seems  fragmentary,  and  contains  in  itself  certain 
difficulties.  It  may  be  a  later  addition.  Of  course,  all 
partition  theories  are  open  to  much  criticism,  and  are 
at  best  only  theoretical.  In  the  case  of  such  a  letter, 
however,  as  we  are  here  considering  it  may  be  easier 
to  regard  the  autobiographical  passages  as  genuine  than 
to  hold  that  the  whole  letter  is  the  invention  of  a  later 


132     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

writer  than  the  Apostle.  Some  may  feel  it  difficult  to 
understand  how  a  letter  entitled  II.  Timothy  could 
precede  I.  Timothy,  but  the  titles  may  easily  have  been 
added  at  a  much  later  time. 

TITUS 

The  external  evidence  for  this  letter  is  much  the  same 
as  that  for  the  two  former  ones,  but  is  strengthened  by 
the  fact  that  it  was  the  only  one  of  the  three  accepted 
by  Tatian.  The  history  of  Titus,  so  far  as  we  know 
it,  is  that  he  was  one  of  Paul's  Gentile  converts,  who 
was  with  the  Apostle  at  Antioch,  and  went  on  with  him 
to  Jerusalem,  where  the  attempt  was  made  to  compel 
Paul  to  circumcise  him  (see  Gal.  ii.).  A  further  refer- 
ence in  II.  Cor.  xii.  i8  is  taken  by  Dr.  Souter  to  mean 
that  Titus  was  Timothy's  brother,  and  to  him  is  given 
the  work  of  organising  the  collection  at  Corinth.  This 
duty  was  well  done,  and  Titus  returned  with  the  later 
message.  All  other  information  about  him  is  derived 
from  this  present  letter,  from  which  it  appears  that  he 
had  charge  of  the  work  in  Crete.  The  earlier  refer- 
ences we  have  examined  show  him  to  have  been  a 
man  of  great  reliability,  and  of  a  genial  and  persuasive 
temperament,  with  a  personality  suited  for  difficult  and 


TITUS  133 


delicate  tasks.  This  letter  tells  us  that  Paul  and  he 
had  been  together  in  Crete,  but  on  what  occasion  it  is 
impossible  to  tell  (see  above,  p.  118).  This  letter 
purports  to  have  been  sent  to  him  by  Zenas,  of  whom 
we  know  nothing  further,  and  by  Apollos,  Paul's  well- 
known  friend  (see  iii.  13). 

The  general  tone  of  the  letter  is  very  much  akin  to 
that  of  the  other  two  pastorals.  False  teachers  are 
active  in  the  community,  and  are  clearly  of  a  Jewish 
complexion.  Church  organisation  is  dealt  with  on  the 
same  lines  as  in  I.  Timothy,  but  more  simply.  The 
same  features  of  vocabulary  and  style  are  present  in  this 
letter  as  in  the  former  ones.  Attempts  have  been  made, 
not  very  satisfactorily,  to  split  this  letter  into  Pauline 
and  non-Pauline  sections,  the  only  part  about  which 
there  is  absolute  unanimity  among  such  critics  being 
that  the  last  few  verses  are  certainly  to  be  attributed 
to  the  Apostle.  In  its  present  form  it  probably  consists 
of  a  Pauline  kernel,  no  longer  definitely  to  be  distin- 
guished, worked  over  by  a  later  hand,  and  may  belong 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century.^ 

^  See  Note  B  for  latest  views  on  Pauline  literature. 


CHAPTER  VII 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 

This  book  is  unique  among  the  books  of  the  New 

Testament.     It  is  called  an  epistle,  but  has  practically 

no   features   of   such  a  writing,    except  in  its  close. 

There  is   no   opening   salutation,   and,    therefore,  the 

book  lays  no  claim  to  any  definite  authorship.     The 

external  evidence  in  its  favour  as  a  book  well  known 

to  the  early  Christian  Church  begins  with  a  quotation 

from  it  in  Clement  of  Rome.     It  cannot  be  definitely 

said  that  Justin  Martyr  quotes  it,  and  it  is  not  included 

in    the   Canon   of  Marcion   or   in   the   Mur.   Canon. 

We  have   no   reference  to  it  in   the  extant  works   of 

Irenceus,  and  our  next  evidence  is  in  TertuUian,  who 

ascribed  it  to  Barnabas.     Clement  of  Alexandria  assigns 

it  to  Paul,  and  says  that  the  Apostle  wrote  it  in  Hebrew, 

and  that  Luke  translated  it  into  Greek.     Origen  knows 

that  tradition  assigned  it  to  Clement  or  to  Luke,  but 

for  himself  the  authorship  appears  an  insoluble  riddle. 

134 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     135 

It  was  a  long  time  before  the  epistle  was  accepted  by 
Western  Christendom,  and  even  such  late  writers  as 
Augustine  and  Jerome  were  doubtful  about  it. 

Such  being  a  brief  outline  of  the  facts  of  the  external 
evidence,  we  may  consider  further  the  later  attempts 
at  assigning  an  author  to  it.  It  is  almost  certain  that 
he  cannot  be  Paul,  from  considerations  of  tradition, 
language,  style,  and  thought.  It  is  in  all  ways  far  re- 
moved from  his  recognised  writings,  and  has  no  similarity 
even  to  the  disputed  ones.  One  clear  statement  may 
be  mentioned,  that  of  ii.  3,  where  the  writer  of  this 
epistle  claims  to  have  received  his  message  at  the  hand 
of  preachers  of  the  Gospel,  being  in  this  quite  apart 
from  Paul,  who  always  lays  stress  upon  the  immediacy 
of  his  own  message.  Many  consider  that  the  claims 
of  Barnabas  are  excellent,  and  other  suggestions  have 
been  Peter  and  Silas,  but  with  little  support.  It  was 
Luther  who  suggested  Apollos  as  the  author,  and  the 
suggestion  has  met  with  much  favour.  Apollos  was 
trained  in  Alexandria,  and  this  book  bears  the  strongest 
evidence  of  Alexandrian  influence.  He  was  mighty  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  eloquent,  and  this  book  shows  both 
features.  We  could  understand,  therefore,  the  con- 
nection  between    Apollos,    Paul,    and    Timothy.     The 

K 


136     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

only  difficulty  is  to  understand  how  his  name  could 
have  slipped  out  of  later  tradition.  The  most  recent 
theory  is  that  of  Harnack,  who  says  if  Apollos,  why 
not  the  teachers  of  Apollos,  namely,  Priscilla  and 
Aquila?  And  of  the  two,  Harnack  leans  to  Priscilla 
as  the  authoress.  We  know  how  highly  Paul  regarded 
these  workers,  and  the  important  place  they  held  in  the 
early  Christian  community.  Were  she  the  writer,  it 
might  account  for  the  loss  of  the  name,  as  women 
teachers  were  not  encouraged  in  the  early  Church. 
We  have  no  facts  that  can  lead  us  further,  and  choice 
must  be  made  between  these  various  suggestions,  or 
else  the  book  be  left  anonymous. 

The  character  of  the  church  to  which  the  letter  is 
addressed  is  another  matter  that  is  not  easy  to  decide. 
The  title  might  seem  to  settle,  without  further  dispute, 
that  it  consisted  of  Jews,  but  apart  from  the  fact  that 
the  title  is  not  known  before  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  the  word  "  Hebrews  "  had  a  very  wide  signifi- 
cance. Neither  are  the  references  in  the  epistle  itself  to 
the  Jews  of  such  a  nature  as  to  be  only  applicable  to 
a  Jewish  community.  Elsewhere  than  in  this  epistle 
we  find  Gentiles  addressed  as  the  seed  of  Abraham 
(see  Gal.  iii,  7,  29),  and  the  effort  to  limit  such  passages 
as  chaps,  ix.   26-28  and  ii.  9,    15   to  a  purely  Jewish 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     137 

community  does  not  seem  to  the  present  writer  con- 
clusive. Some  scholars  consider  that  the  reference  in 
xiii.  13,  "without  the  camp,"  must  point  to  Jewish 
readers,  but  surely  it  is  only  a  special  instance  of  the 
general  allegorical  methods  of  the  writer,  and  would  be 
perfectly  intelligible  to  Gentile  readers  trained  in  such 
formsjof  expression.  Stronger  arguments  for  the  Jewish 
position  are  found  in  the  mention  of  the  dangers  to 
which  the  Christian  community  is  exposed.  Many  hold 
that  the  language  used  better  describes  those  who  were 
in  danger  of  relapsing  into  Judaism  than  into  heathenism. 
The  passages  that  are  adduced  as  the  strongest  proofs 
of  this  position  are  vi.  6  and  x.  29.  But  in  neither 
case  does  it  seem  less  appropriate  to  use  the  language 
of  those  who  had  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  Christian 
communion  and  had  again  fallen  back  into  the  shame 
of  heathenism.  The  strongest  point  of  all  used  in 
support  of  the  Jewish  hypothesis  is  the  large  claim 
that  is  made  for  the  Old  Testament  in  the  pages  of  this 
epistle,  but  here  again  the  writer  may  be  relying  upon 
what  is  for  him  the  supreme  authority,  and  feel  himself 
unable  to  advance  any  stronger  argument  than  it  con- 
tains for  the  position  he  wishes  to  emphasise. 

The  sins  to  which  the  community  was  prone  seem 
to   have   been  those  that  particularly  beset  Gentiles — 


138     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

e.g.  impurity,  slackness,  lack  of  faith  and  hope ;  the 
first  principles  of  the  Gospel  set  forth  in  the  end  of  the 
fifth  and  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  chapters  are  much 
more  appropriate  if  used  in  reference  to  a  Gentile  than 
to  a  Jewish  community.  It  is  not  necessary  to  argue, 
however,  that  the  community  to  whom  the  letter  was 
addressed  belonged  entirely  to  either  section,  but  that, 
like  the  Pauline  churches,  the  Church  here  addressed 
consisted  both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

It  is  not  more  easy  to  decide  the  place  to  which  the 
letter  was  written,  though  Rome  seems  a  more  probable 
destination  than  any  other.  It  may  have  been  to 
another  Roman  community  than  that  to  which  Paul 
wrote. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  epistle  that  definitely  points 
to  a  certain  date,  though  the  various  references  to 
suffering  seem  to  imply  a  period  of  persecution  past 
and  threatening.  This  may  point  to  the  eve  of  the 
persecution  under  Domitian  (a.d.  81-96).  Some  have 
supposed  that  the  constant  references  to  the  Jewish  law 
imply  that  the  temple  was  still  standing,  but  it  is  very 
striking  that  the  word  "temple"  never  occurs  in  the 
epistle,  and  that  all  the  illustration  is  drawn  from  the 
accounts  of  the  tabernacle  ritual.  The  whole  method 
of  treatment  is  too  allegorical  to  base  any   historical 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     139 

assumption  on  such  a  passage  as  xiii.  13.  The  con- 
dition of  the  Christian  community,  implied  in  various 
parts  of  the  epistle,  points  to  a  later  stage  than  the 
first  generation,  so  that  on  the  whole  we  may  put  the 
letter  in  a  period  toward  the  end  of  the  first  century. 

The  lessons  of  the  epistle  are  those  especially  de- 
signed for  a  period  of  transition,  and  that  is  the  reason 
why  it  so  frequently  strikes  readers  as  modern  in  tone. 
It  is  an  elaborate  discussion  of  the  permanence  of  the 
Christian  faith  as  opposed  to  the  transiency  of  Judaism. 
But  the  truth  here  illustrated  by  that  example  is  appli- 
cable to  many  other  conditions.  The  writer's  purpose 
is  to  show  that  God  "  fulfils  Himself  in  many  ways," 
and  that  neither  ritual,  law,  nor  systems  of  theology 
can  at  any  one  time  fully  express  His  message.  The 
one  eternal  reality  is  God  in  Christ.  To  set  Christ 
forth  as  "the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever"  is 
the  great  object  of  the  book.  What  at  first  seems,  on 
a  casual  reading,  to  be  the  writing  of  all  the  New 
Testament  limited  to  an  age  and  a  state  of  society  far 
apart  from  our  own,  becomes,  on  closer  acquaintance, 
the  most  illuminating  discussion  of  Christian  thought 
for  every  period  that  involves  the  strain  and  stress 
that  arise  from  modification  of  old  views,  and  the  new 
realisation  of  the  things  that  are  eternal. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   CATHOLIC    EPISTLES 

JAMES 

This  is  the  first  of  a  group  of  writings  known  as  General 
or  Catholic  Epistles.  The  most  probable  origin  of  the 
term  is  the  fact  that  they  are  addressed  to  Christians 
in  general,  not  to  particular  communities,  as  Paul's 
letters  are.  It  is  true  that  this  does  not  apply  to  the 
Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  John,  but  through  being 
closely  attached  to  the  first  epistle,  they  are  included 
in  the  group.  They  often  appear  in  a  separate  manu- 
script, either  alone  or  with  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  in 
manuscripts  that  contain  the  whole  New  Testament 
they  either  occupy  the  position  they  do  in  our  version, 
or  are  found  between  Acts  and  the  Pauline  Epistles. 
The  title  Catholic  is  first  found  for  them  at  the  end 
of  the  second  century. 

This   epistle  is  written  in  the  name  of  James,  but 

no  further  indication  is  given  whereby  to  identify  him. 

140 


JAMES  141 


In  the  view  of  most  it  is  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
who  became  leader  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  that 
is  the  author  of  the  book,  but  the  identification  arises 
from  the  important  position  held  by  him,  and  from 
the  fact  that  this  letter  is  written  to  the  Dispersion. 
Except  the  opening  words,  there  is  nothing  else  in 
the  book  that  bears  the  distinct  character  of  an  epistle, 
nor  are  there  any  personal  references. 

It  is  not  easy  to  find  definite  external  evidence  of 
an  early  date  for  the  use  of  the  epistle,  for  supposed 
quotations  in  early  writings  are  not  at  all  conclusive. 
In  this  case  we  have  no  reference  to  the  book  by 
name  until  we  come  to  Origen,  who  mentions  the 
epistle,  and  says  it  was  ascribed  to  James,  but  the 
way  in  which  he  does  so  shows  that  he  is  doubtful 
about  the  ascription.  Even  at  the  time  of  Eusebius 
hesitation  was  felt  about  its  acceptance,  especially  in 
the  Church  of  the  West. 

When  we  turn  to  the  epistle  itself  we  do  not  find 
a  great  deal  to  help  us  with  regard  to  the  authorship. 
When  we  sum  up  most  that  has  been  said,  it  amounts  to 
little  more  than  the  fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
epistle  that  James  might  not  have  written.  There  has 
been  considerable  discussion  as  to  how  far  the  book  is 


142     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

dependent  upon  other  writings  in  the  New  Testament. 
No  very  conclusive  case  can  be  made  for  a  knowledge 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  In  the  undoubted  resem- 
blances that  exist  between  this  letter  and  I.  Peter,  the 
real  secret  is  almost  certainly  their  joint  use  of  the 
same  passages  from  the  Old  Testament.  We  do  un- 
doubtedly find  many  echoes  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  and  other  sections  of  our  Lord's  teaching 
{cf.  iii.  12  with  Matt.  vii.  i6;  ii.  13  with  Matt.  v.  7; 
and  vii.  2  and  v.  12  with  Matt.  v.  34-37).  Not  only 
so,  but  such  sayings  as  i.  4,  i.  6,  i.  11,  i.  17,  and 
many  others,  are  echoes  of  well-known  words  of  Jesus. 
The  saying  in  i.  12  is  expressed  in  a  form  that  was 
frequent  on  our  Lord's  lips,  and  the  promise  of  the 
"crown"  is  found  also  in  I.  Pet.  v.  4  and  IL  Tim. 
iv.  8.  We  have  some  ground,  therefore,  for  believing 
that  this  represents  a  saying  of  our  Lord  unrecorded 
in  our  Gospels.  This  points  to  a  probable  origin  of 
the  book  which  has  been  worked  out  by  the  present 
writer  In  The  Expositor  (7th  ser.,  vol.  vii.).  The  idea, 
briefly  expressed,  is  that  James,  the  brother  of  the 
Lord,  may  have  made  a  collection  of  sayings  other- 
wise not  preserved,  and  have  made  these  the  basis 
of  short   homilies   or   reflections,   which   are   collected 


JAMES  143 


together  in  this  present  work.  It  may  not  have  been 
designed  at  all  as  a  letter  in  the  first  instance,  but 
after  the  death  of  James  some  of  his  disciples  may 
have  realised  the  value  of  such  a  record,  and  brought 
them  all  together  in  his  name,  and  sent  them  out 
with  his  authority. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  book  represents 
the  feelings  of  a  Jewish  community,  and  it  is  just 
possible  that  it  consists  largely  of  the  adaptation  of 
Jewish  synagogue  teaching  to  Christian  purposes.  It 
certainly  contains  no  elaborate  Christian  doctrine,  and 
is  quite  innocent  of  any  teaching  on  the  person  of 
Christ.  It  gives  an  interesting  picture  of  the  early 
community,  and  the  danger  of  something  akin  to  our 
modern  "  snobbishness "  creeping  in  to  the  Christian 
fellowship.  The  famous  passage  in  chap.  v.  on  prayer 
for  and  anointing  of  the  sick  is  once  more  coming 
into  great  prominence  in  these  days  when  we  hear  so 
much  of  psycho-therapeutics,  but  it  is  questionable 
whether  more  is  meant  by  it  than  the  importance  of 
prayer  in  all  matters  physical  and  spiritual,  and  the 
value  of  using  in  a  prayerful  spirit  all  known  methods 
of  healing. 

It   is  almost  impossible  to  fix  on  any  date  for  the 


144     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

book,  and  it  has  been  dated  in  all  periods  from  about 
50  to  130.  If  it  was  written  and  recognised  as  the 
earliest  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is 
difficult  to  account  for  the  silence  concerning  it  on 
the  part  of  second  century  witnesses.  But  if  the  theory 
here  suggested  of  the  book  be  correct,  we  can  easily 
understand  how  it  may  contain  elements  of  very  early 
teaching,  and  yet  may  not  have  been  published  until 
early  in  the  second  century,  and  thus  the  difficulties 
would  be  met. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  the  early  centuries 
there  was  a  group  of  literature  to  which  the  name  of 
James  was  attached,  as  we  shall  presently  find  was  also 
the  case  with  Peter.  It  is  quite  conceivable,  therefore, 
that  this  little  book  may  have  been  issued  in  his  name, 
though  its  final  form  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  him 
who  was  first  leader  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem. 


I.   PETER 

The  external  evidence  for  this  epistle  is  much 
stronger  than  for  James.  In  some  of  the  early  writings 
there  are  echoes  of  its  language,  but  not  convincing 
proof.     When  we  reach  Polycarp's  letter,  however,  it 


I.    PETER  145 


does  appear  that  in  two  passages,  namely,  i.  3  and  ii.  t, 
he  quotes  from  the  first  chapter  of  this  epistle,  and  we 
are  told  by  Eusebius  that  Papias  also  knew  and  used 
it.  Irenaeus  and  his  contemporaries  quote  it  as  Peter's, 
and  though  it  does  not  occur  in  the  list  of  the  Mur. 
Canon,  there  is  a  possibility  that  the  omission  is  just 
a  slip.  It  is  found  in  the  earliest  versions.  Both  by 
Origen  and  Eusebius  it  is  reckoned  as  authentic. 

Our  difficulties  as  to  the  authorship  begin  with  the 
internal  evidence.  No  conclusive  proof  is  to  be  drawn 
from  parallels  with  the  Gospels,  especially  Mark,  or  with 
the  Petrine  speeches  contained  in  Acts.  The  churches 
specially  mentioned  in  the  salutation  are  those  of  Asia 
Minor.  We  have  no  evidence  that  Peter  ever  visited 
these,  and  it  is  felt  to  be  strange  that  he  makes  no 
mention  of  Paul  in  writing  to  churches  so  intimately 
associated  with  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  It  has  been 
supposed  that  he  may  be  writing  to  Jewish  communities, 
and  not  to  the  churches  that  Paul  founded,  but  this  is, 
of  course,  a  pure  speculation,  and  in  the  estimation  of 
the  present  writer  not  a  probable  one.  Further,  the 
writer  speaks  of  Mark  as  being  with  him  at  the  time  of 
writing  (see  v.  13),  and  if  the  Babylon  of  that  verse 
means,  as  it  probably  does,  Rome,  then  both  the  writer 


146     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  Mark  were  in  the  capital  of  the  empire  at  the  time. 
As  Paul  is  not  named,  the  only  explanation  is  that  he 
was  dead,  which  places  the  epistle  at  once  in  the  decade 
between  60  and  70.  Further,  from  iv.  14-16  we  learn 
that  the  persecution  to  which  readers  were  exposed  was 
persecution  as  Christians,  and  this,  Professor  Ramsay 
argues,  could  not  have  been  the  case  earlier  than  80 ; 
though  he  accepts  that  as  the  date,  and  also  Peter  as 
the  author,  it  is  almost  impossible  to  do  so  in  view  of 
the  strongly  supported  tradition  that  points  to  the  year 
66  as  that  of  Peter's  martyrdom.  A  further  difficulty 
arises  from  the  obvious  use  in  this  letter  of  the  Pauline 
epistles,  especially  of  Rom.  xii.  and  xiii.,  and  Gal.  iii.  and 
v.,  and  Eph.  ii.  and  iv.  Those  who  accept  the  Petrine 
authorship  argue  that  it  was  in  agreement  with  Peter's 
well-known  impulsive  and  generous  nature  thus  to  quote 
from  one  who,  at  an  earlier  period  in  his  career,  had 
been  bitterly  opposed  to  him.  We  must  remember  that 
too  much  has  probably  been  made  of  the  opposition  of 
the  two  Apostles  at  Antioch,  and  that  Peter  himself  had 
vindicated  the  rights  of  the  Gentiles  before  the  Church 
at  Jerusalem. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  the  mere  fact  of  the  epistle 
being  attributed  to  Peter  in  its  opening  words  is  not 


I.    PETER  147 


conclusive  evidence  that  it  was  written  by  him.  Quite 
early  there  was  a  whole  group  of  literature  in  existence 
to  which  the  name  of  Peter  was  attached.  The  second 
epistle,  which  will  be  presently  discussed,  the  Gospel 
of  Peter ^  the  Preaching  of  Peter ^  and  the  Apocalypse  of 
Peter  (for  particulars  of  which  the  reader  should  consult 
Professor  Andrews'  vol.  in  this  series),  and  also  the  later 
Clement  Recognitio7is^  which  is  a  romance  founded  upon 
the  relations  of  Peter  and  Simon  Magus.  Very  few 
scholars  would  attribute  any  of  these  books  to  the 
Apostle,  and  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  such  a 
group  of  pseudonymous  writings  makes  us  uncertain 
about  this  work  in  the  absence  of  anything  like  con- 
vincing argument  for  apostolic  authorship.  It  is  true 
that  if  it  is  not  Peter's,  we  have  no  name  to  suggest  in 
place  of  his.  It  has  been  supposed  that  it  might  have 
been  written  by  Paul,  or  by  Silvanus,  the  latter  of  whom 
is  named  in  the  close  of  the  letter  as  the  amanuensis. 
Mark  might  be  suggested,  a  reference  to  him  at  the 
close  being  taken  to  be  a  modest  way  of  hiding  his 
authorship,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  epistle  itself  that 
suggests  his  style,  and  it  would  be  even  more  difficult  to 
suppose  that  he  wrote  it  than  to  accept  the  position  of 
an  unknown  authorship. 


148     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  difficulty  of  authorship  is  inextricably  associated 
with  that  of  date.  If  we  suppose  that  Peter  wrote  it 
before  the  greater  Pauline  letters  were  written,  then 
there  was  no  point  in  much  of  Paul's  argument,  for  these 
communities  must  already  have  been  familiar  with  the 
teaching  at  the  hands  of  Peter,  and  if  it  was  written 
later  than  all  Paul's  letters,  the  silence  as  to  Paul's  own 
work  and  teaching  is  inexplicablCc  Besides,  were  it 
written  by  the  Apostle  Peter,  we  should  expect  many 
more  traces  of  personal  testimony  to  the  knowledge  of 
Christ  and  of  His  teaching  than  we  have.  Asi  Jiilicher 
says,  if  we  are  to  suppose  that  Peter  was  the  author, 
and  he  could  only  speak  of  Christ  like  Paul  at  second 
hand,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  wherein  the  superiority  of  the 
primitive  Apostles  over  Paul  can  have  lain,  or  "  how  we 
are  to  imagine  that  the  earliest  form  of  the  Gospels  with 
all  their  richness  of  material  ever  arose."  Harnack 
thinks  that  the  work  was  not  originally  a  letter  at  all, 
but  was  written  by  some  prominent  teacher  towards  the 
end  of  the  first  century,  and  that  possibly  the  author  of 
II.  Peter  added  to  it  the  salutation  and  the  close  to  give 
it  the  appearance  of  an  apostolic  letter.  This  is  not  a 
very  probable  solution,  however,  because  this  work  was 
probably  in  circulation  long  before  the  second  epistle, 


I.    PETER  149 


and  it  is  more  likely  that,  emanating  from  Rome,  the 
name  of  Peter  was  attached  to  it  because  it  echoed 
teaching  that  was  well  known  as  his,  and  because  his 
name  would  carry  weight  with  it,  seeing  that  he  was  not 
only  an  Apostle,  but  a  martyr,  and,  therefore,  an  appro- 
priate consoler  in  days  of  persecution.  One  interesting 
point  about  it  is  the  section  in  ii.  13-17,  where  loyalty 
to  the  imperial  authorities  is  inculcated.  This  seems  to 
be  a  counsel  of  wisdom  to  those  who  were  exposed  to 
persecution  at  the  hand  of  the  provincial  governorsc  It 
is  difficult  to  realise  the  conditions  hinted  at  in  various 
parts  of  the  epistle,  unless  it  was  written  at  a  time  of 
systematic  persecution.  Somewhere,  therefore,  towards 
the  end  of  the  first  century  seems  the  most  suitable  date 
for  its  appearance. 

We  have  seen  that  in  the  main  the  teaching  of  this 
epistle  is  in  agreement  with  the  teaching  of  Paul,  but 
there  are  two  striking  passages  that  stand  alone  in  the 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  namely,  iii.  19,  20,  and 
iv.  6 — the  passages  which  deal  with  the  preaching  to 
the  "spirits  in  prison."  Many  explanations  have  been 
given  of  these  difficult  passages,  which  can  be  studied 
in  any  good  commentary,  but  it  may  be  said  here 
that  the  idea  seems  to  have  been  derived  from  Jewish 


I50     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

teachers,  who  held  that  those  who  had  passed  away,  as 
well  as  those  who  would  then  be  alive  upon  earth,  were 
to  see  the  Messiah,  and  to  receive  the  blessings  of  His 
reign.  The  idea  has  certainly  no  basis  in  the  Gospels 
or  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  it  is  best  to  accept  it  as 
a  beautiful  parable  of  what  was  the  firm  faith  of  all  the 
early  Christian  teachers,  viz.  that  in  Christ  alone  was 
salvation  to  be  found,  and  that  whatever  blessing  comes 
to  men.  He  is  its  Source  and  Origin,  as  well  as  its  real 
Channel,  even  when  the  recipients  are  unconscious  of 
Him  to  whom  they  owe  such  blessings.  The  truths 
of  the  Christian  revelation  are  expressed  in  a  different 
manner  by  this  writer  and  by  Paul,  but  they  are  sup- 
plementary, not  contradictory.  In  the  language  of 
Professor  Bigg,  Paul  is  a  mystic,  while  this  writer  is  a 
disciplinarian  (see  Bigg's  Commentary,  p.  37). 


JUDE 

The  reason  for  discussing  this  letter  before  II.  Peter 
will  appear  presently,  when,  in  discussing  the  latter  book, 
we  shall  find  that  much  of  it  is  already  contained  in 
this  shorter  letter.  The  writer  calls  himself  in  the 
opening   verse  not   only  a  "servant  of  Jesus   Christ," 


JUDE  151 

but  "  brother  of  James."  We  find  in  Matthew  xiii.  55 
that  a  Jude,  or  Judas  to  give  the  correct  Greek  form,  is 
named  as  one  of  the  brethren  of  our  Lord,  and  hence 
the  assumption  is  that  he  is  the  person  indicated  in 
this  letter.  Christian  tradition  speaks  of  two  of  Jude's 
grandsons  being  brought  before  the  Emperor  Domitian. 
We  are  further  told  that  these  men  lived  on  into  the 
second  century,  when  they  died  at  an  advanced  age. 
If  we  calculate  back  on  the  ordinary  averages  of  life, 
we  shall  find  that  Jude  himself  cannot  very  well  have 
lived  longer  than  about  70,  so  that  this  letter,  were  it 
written  by  him,  would  probably  be  dated  somewhere 
between  a.d.  60  and  70.  We  shall  see,  however,  that 
the  letter  bears  distinct  traces  of  a  much  later  author- 
ship, and  that,  therefore,  the  writer  cannot  be  the  Judas 
mentioned  in  the  Gospels.  Some  have  suggested  that 
he  may  have  been  a  quite  unknown  person  who  bore 
the  somewhat  common  name,  and  that  the  appellation, 
brother  of  James,  was  inserted  at  a  later  time  to  identify 
him  with  the  brother  of  the  Lord. 

When  we  turn  to  the  epistle  itself  for  evidences  of 
its  date,  we  are  in  a  very  disputable  region.  One  or 
two  points  are  clear  at  first  reading,  namely,  the  writer's 
frank  use  of  writings  that  were  not  in  the  canon  of  the 


152     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Old  Testament,  which  he  quotes  as  authoritatively  as 
others  do  the  Old  Testament  itself.  Now,  though 
there  is  evidence  that  Paul  was  acquainted  with  some 
of  these  books,  he  never  quotes  them  in  this  way,  and 
we  are  inclined  at  once  to  think  that  this  points  to  a 
later  date.  In  the  second  place,  ver.  17  speaks  of  the 
Apostles  in  a  manner  that  appears  only  suitable  to  one 
who  was  writing  subsequently  to  their  death,  and  a 
similar  impression  is  gained  from  the  phrase  in  ver.  4, 
namely,  "They  who  were  of  old  set  forth  unto  this 
condemnation."  Further,  the  description  of  the  false 
teachers  and  their  errors  contained  in  the  epistle  cer- 
tainly points  to  a  later  period  of  error  than  anything  we 
meet  in  the  Pauline  letters.  If  it  is  not  possible  de- 
finitely to  associate  the  description  with  certain  schools 
of  Gnostic  heretics,  as  is  done  by  some  scholars,  we  are 
pretty  clear  that  the  same  type  of  teaching,  which  at  a 
later  time  marked  these,  is  here  found  in  its  earlier 
stages.  We  are,  therefore,  constrained  to  place  the 
epistle  in  the  second  century,  though  probably  quite 
early  in  the  century.  Indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  give 
any  exact  date  to  it,  though  the  external  evidence 
which  we  now  turn  to  consider  puts  a  certain  limit  to 
its  date.     In  the  letter  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians, 


JUDE 153 

traces  have  been  found  of  the  language  of  Jude,  especi- 
ally the  same  juxtaposition  of  certain  ideas,  but  these 
are  altogether  too  indefinite  to  found  upon  them  the 
conclusion  that  Polycarp  knew  this  letter.  Writers 
toward  the  end  of  the  first  century  show  pretty  clear 
references  to  Jude's  use  of  the  planets  as  a  type  of 
fallen  men,  but,  of  course,  the  idea  may  have  been 
found  in  some  Jewish  writing  of  which  we  have  now 
lost  trace.  The  Mur.  Canon  mentions  the  book,  but 
in  a  doubtful  way.  The  book  is  quoted  by  name  by 
Tertullian  and  Clement  of  Alexandria.  Origen  is  aware 
of  the  doubts  entertained  about  its  authorship,  but 
seems  to  accept  it  himself,  probably  because  he  was 
interested  in  its  doctrine  of  angels.  Eusebius  seems  to 
have  doubted  the  book's  authenticity,  but  says  many 
regarded  it  as  genuine.  It  was  not  included  in  the 
Syriac  version. 

One  reason  why  the  epistle  was  doubted  in  early  times 
was  possibly  because  of  its  use  of  apocryphal  writings. 
The  Book  of  E7ioch^  one  of  the  most  famous  of  the 
Jewish  apocalypses,  is  referred  to  in  v.  14.  During 
the  first  and  second  centuries  the  book  seems  to  have 
been  regarded  as  quite  as  authoritative  as  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament,  but  later  writers  decided  against 


154     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

its  authority,  and  even  criticised  severely  those  who 
had  used  it.  Another  of  the  Jewish  apocalypses  used 
by  Jude  is  the  Assumption  of  Moses  (see  v.  9).  This 
book  he  evidently  takes  as  quite  authoritative,  and 
when  the  book  itself  fell  into  disrepute,  it  is  easy  to 
understand  that  the  epistle  which  used  it  would  be 
also  lightly  regarded,  seeing  that  the  ecclesiastical 
writers  regarded  Jude's  use  of  it  as  claiming  for  the 
book  canonical  authority.  The  great  interest  for  us 
in  his  use  of  these  books  is  that  it  points  to  his  Jewish 
sympathies,  if  not  actually  to  the  fact  that  he  was  a 
Jew  himself,  and  is  also  an  evidence  of  the  great 
place  these  books  played  in  early  Christian  thought. 
It  is  practically  impossible  to  fix  a  place  of  origin 
or  a  destination  for  this  epistle.  It  may  be  that  it 
originated  in  Egypt,  because  the  churches  there  appear 
to  have  been  more  than  generally  fond  of  apocalypse, 
and  also  liable  to  the  errors  in  teaching  and  practice 
to  which  this  epistle  refers. 

Apart  from  its  main  teaching  about  the  definite 
errors  of  those  who  were  bringing  corruption  into  the 
Church,  the  epistle  is  remarkable  for  the  beautiful  lan- 
guage and  fine  thought  of  the  20th  and  21st  verses,  and 
also  for  the  lovely  doxology  with  which  the  letter  closes. 


II.    PETER  155 


II.    PETER 

In  many  ways  this  is  the  most  difficult  book  in  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament  to  discuss.  The  diffi- 
culties arise  from  its  contents,  its  professed  authorship, 
its  relation  to  the  Epistle  of  Jude^  and  the  way  in  which 
it  was  regarded  by  the  writers  of  the  early  centuries.  It 
is  better,  perhaps,  to  begin  our  discussion  with  the  most 
obvious  fact  in  connection  with  it,  namely,  its  close 
relation  to  the  Epistle  of  Jude.  This  relation  applies 
in  particular  to  chaps,  ii.  i-iii.  3,  which  should  be 
carefully  compared  with  the  section  in  Jude  4-18.  It 
is  not  possible  here  to  set  out  the  parallel  in  detail, 
but  English  readers  will  find  it  very  carefully  done  in 
Professor  Bennett's  commentary  on  the  General  Epistles 
in  the  Century  Bible,  pp.  58-61,  and  his  analysis 
should  be  carefully  studied.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  writing  of  one  author  was  known  to  the  other ; 
the  only  question  is  as  to  which  was  the  original,  and 
on  this  subject  the  opinions  of  scholars  vary.  The 
present  writer  has,  however,  no  doubt  that  Jude  was 
the  earlier  of  the  two,  because  in  one  or  two  cases 
we  can  see  how  the  writer  of  II.  Peter  has  modified 
the  earlier  statements,  one  capital  example  being  Jude 


156     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

17,  18,  as  compared  with  II.  Peter  iii.  2,  3.  If  this 
decision  be  correct,  then  the  results  obtained  in  the  case 
of  Jude's  Epistle  must  be  presupposed  here,  which  means 
that  this  letter  was  later  than  Jude;  and  even  if  it  is 
argued  that  it  is  not  necessarily  much  later,  all  question 
of  a  possible  apostolic  authorship  is  impossible. 

But  there  is  no  question  that  the  letter  itself  asserts 
that  it  was  written  by  the  Apostle  Peter,  and  in  iii.  i 
the  writer  speaks  of  this  work  as  his  second  letter. 
What,  then,  is  to  be  said  about  the  relation  of  this 
work  to  the  first  epistle?  Apart  from  the  reference 
just  named,  there  are  not  very  many  noteworthy  re- 
semblances between  the  two  books.  It  is  true  that 
in  each  we  have  references  to  Noah,  and  one  or  two 
phrases  that  are  confined  to  these  two  epistles  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  nobody  doubts  that  the  writer 
of  II.  Peter  knew  the  first  epistle,  and,  therefore,  such 
resemblances  are  easily  accounted  for.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  differences  in  style,  vocabulary,  and  thought 
are  much  more  marked  than  these  slight  resemblances  -, 
and  not  only  modern  critics,  but  ancient  ones,  felt 
that  the  two  writings  were  not  at  all  likely  to  have 
emanated  from  the  same  author.  In  light  of  what 
has  been  said  on  p.  122  about  pseudonymous  literature, 


11.  PETER  157 


we  cannot  bring  in  the  statement  about  the  Trans- 
figuration, which  occurs  in  chap.  i.  16-18,  as  a  proof 
of  Peter's  authorship,  nor  even  his  use  in  i.  15  of  the 
striking  word  ^^ exodus ^^  with  the  meaning  "death," 
which  is  employed  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  in  the  nar- 
rative of  the  Transfiguration.  If  the  epistle  were  really 
Peter's,  we  should  rather  expect  traces  of  the  Marcan 
form  of  the  story,  but  much  stress  cannot  be  laid  on 
either  point.  There  is  a  further  strong  argument  against 
Petrine  authorship  in  the  reference  in  iii.  15,  16,  to 
the  letters  of  Paul ;  first  of  all  that  they  are  classed  as 
Scripture,  and  secondly,  that  it  is  frankly  recognised 
there  are  things  in  them  that  are  hard  to  understand. 
It  has  been  said  that  nobody  but  Peter  would  venture 
to  style  Paul  "our  beloved  brother,"  but  if  we  agree 
that  the  epistle  may  well  have  been  written  by  some  one 
in  Peter's  name,  this  is  quite  the  sort  of  expression 
we  should  expect.  Further,  the  whole  content  of  the 
letter  points  to  a  much  later  period  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  than  anything  that  could  be  covered  by  the 
life  of  the  Apostle,  and  all  that  has  already  been  urged 
against  the  Petrine  authorship  of  the  first  epistle  applies 
with  much  greater  force  to  this  second  letter. 

To  turn,  in  the  next  place,  to  the  external  evidence, 


158     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

This  letter  is  perhaps  the  one  with  the  weakest  external 
testimony  of  any  book  in  the  New  Testament.  None 
of  the  early  writers  afford  anything  like  clear  traces 
of  its  use,  not  even  in  this  case  Irenaeus  and  Clement 
of  Alexandria.  It  is  not  contained  in  the  old  Latin 
or  Syriac  versions,  nor  is  it  named  in  the  Mur.  Canon. 
Origen  is  very  doubtful  about  its  authorship,  and 
Eusebius  frankly  admits  that  it  is  among  the  disputed 
books.  Even  Jerome  is  doubtful  about  it,  and  it  was 
probably  not  recognised  as  canonical  before  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century. 

Though  the  writer  uses,  like  Jude,  apocryphal  litera- 
ture, he  does  not  quote  it  by  name,  as  does  that  writer, 
and  this  is  most  reasonably  explained  by  dating  this 
letter  later  than  Jude,  at  a  period  when  the  Christian 
Church  was  less  ready  to  use  books  which  had  not  upon 
them  the  stamp  of  canonicity.  We  should  thus  be 
compelled  to  bring  the  book  down  pretty  far  in  the 
second  century,  certainly  later  than  140. 

It  is  not  easy  to  fix  upon  the  place  in  which  it  was 
written,  but  either  Rome  or  Egypt  seems  most  probable. 
If  we  are  to  take  the  statement  in  iii.  i  as  meaning 
that  the  writer  destines  his  epistle  for  the  same  churches 
as  those  to  which  the  first  epistle  was  sent,  we  shall 


II.    PETER  159 


think  of  this  as  being  written  to  Asia  Minor,  a  very 
suitable  place  in  itself,  since  we  know  that  the  heresies 
herein  referred  to  were  prominent  there.  Otherwise 
we  might  regard  it  as  very  appropriate  to  Egypt,  since 
we  have  seen  that  the  Epistle  of  Jude  may  well  have 
referred  to  the  Christian  communities  in  that  land.  It 
may  be  that  Jude's  Epistle  suggested  to  this  writer  his 
longer  and  more  elaborate  work,  and  that  he  altered  the 
earlier  writing  to  suit  his  special  purpose.  We  need 
not  suppose  that  he  was  either  a  Jew  or  writing  to 
Jewish  communities,  but  that  the  readers  he  had  in 
mind  were  Gentiles  exposed  to  the  peculiar  errors  of 
early  Gnosticism. 

There  is  one  other  point  that  indicates  a  late  date, 
namely,  the  reference  in  chap.  iii.  1-7  to  the  delay  in 
the  Second  Advent.  The  writer  is  clearly  of  opinion 
that  that  event  is  not  nearly  so  imminent  as  the 
early  Church  supposed,  and  the  difficulty  aroused  in 
the  minds  of  many  through  the  non-appearance  of  the 
Lord  has  to  be  met.  The  same  passage  brings  before 
us  the  belief  in  the  destruction  of  the  world  by  fire,  a 
belief  which  was  widely  current  in  the  second  century. 
This  epistle  clearly  belongs  to  the  large  set  of  pseudo- 
Petrine  writings  to  which  reference  was  made  on  p.  147. 


i6o     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

In  conclusion,  the  epistle  may  be  taken  as  a  most 
interesting  example  of  the  best  teaching  of  the  second 
century,  and  the  great  prominence  given  in  it  to  the 
person  and  work  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
repeatedly  termed  throughout  it  "the  Saviour,"  shows 
not  only  the. loyalty  of  the  Church  to  her  earlier  teachers, 
but  the  clear  apprehension  of  the  fact  that  only  in 
distinct  faith  in  His  work  and  person  was  the  true 
antidote  to  be  found  to  all  false  teaching  and  erroneous 
practice. 

I.  JOHN 

The  close  relation  of  this  epistle  to  the  Gospel  of 

John  is  so  obvious,  and  is  so  generally  recognised  by 
scholars  of  every  school  of  thought,  that  the  reader  may 
refer  to  what  has  been  said  on  that  point  in  the  discus- 
sion on  the  Fourth  Gospel  for  a  general  treatment  of  the 
whole  subject.  There  can  be  no  question  that  if  the 
two  books  did  not  emanate  from  the  same  hand,  as  is 
more  than  probable,  they  were  so  certainly  the  product 
of  the  same  school  that  it  is  impossible  to  differentiate 
this  from  the  Gospel.  Indeed,  there  is  a  good  deal  to 
be  said  for  the  view  that  this  epistle  was  a  kind  of 
covering  letter  sent  out  with  the  Gospel,  and  dealing 


I.    JOHN  i6i 


with  its  teachings  as  applied  to  practical  Christian  life. 
The  epistle  contains  evidences  of  not  belonging  to 
the  earliest  apostolic  days,  inasmuch  as  it  mentions 
the  period  of  writing  as  "the  last  hour"  (see  ii.  i8). 
Besides  its  doctrine  of  the  anti-Christ,  which  title  is  con- 
fined to  the  Johannine  Epistles  in  the  New  Testament, 
is  spoken  of  as  the  result  of  prophecy,  apparently  either 
that  of  the  Apostles  or  of  the  Lord  Himself.  The  heresies 
discussed  in  the  epistle  are  almost  certainly  those  of  a 
Docetic  tendency,  i.e.  those  which  held  that  our  Lord's 
earthly  existence  was  a  mere  appearance,  and  not  a  real 
human  nature  (see  i.  i ;  ii.  22  ;  iv.  2,  3). 

The  external  evidence  for  the  epistle  is  early  and 
abundant.  It  is  almost  certainly  quoted  by  Polycarp, 
chap,  vii.,  and  is  referred  to  as  John's  by  Irenseus  and 
other  writers  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  and  is 
included  in  the  Mur.  Canon  and  the  early  versions. 
A  curious  reference  to  it  is  made  by  Augustine,  who 
quotes  iii.  2  as  occurring  in  John's  letter  to  the  Parthians, 
It  is  difficult  to  account  for  this,  unless  the  blunder  was 
either  made  by  a  scribe,  or  the  word  was  mistaken  for  the 
Greek  word  for  "virgins,"  which  it  somewhat  resembles, 
and  that  this  epistle  really  bore  the  title  to  the  Virgins 
as  derived  from  the  passage  in  the  Revelation  xiv.  4. 


i62     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

The  epistle  lacks  both  salutation  and  definite  con- 
clusion, but  all  through  the  repeated  address,  "my 
little  children,"  the  expressions  *'  brethren,"  "  beloved," 
"fathers,"  and  "young  men,"  prove  that  the  writer 
is  appealing  to  those  definitely  known  to  him.  Pre- 
sumably the  work  emanates  ft-om  Ephesus,  and  was 
probably  designed  for  Christians  in  Asia  Minor.  Of 
course  its  date  will  be  practically  the  same  as  that  fixed 
for  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  epistle  is  full  of  the  most  beautiful  thoughts 
exquisitely  expressed,  and  as  a  practical  treatise  upon 
the  love  of  God  as  finding  its  truest  expression  in  the 
love  of  our  fellow-men,  ranks  alongside  Paul's  great 
teaching  on  the  same  subject  in  I.  Cor.  xiii.  The 
great  doctrines  about  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  and 
His  gift  of  the  eternal  life  that  are  given  in  the  Gospel 
of  John  are  here  emphasised  and  reiterated,  and  the 
epistle  is  also  full  of  the  teaching  upon  the  Holy  Spirit 
that  is  so  prominent  in  the  Gospel.  There  is  one  very 
important  and  interesting  point  of  textual  criticism  in 
connection  with  this  epistle,  that,  namely,  which  con- 
cerns the  so-called  "Three  Witness"  passage  in  chap.  v. 
A  comparison  between  the  authorised  and  the  revised 
versions  will    show   that  the   whole   of  verse   7  in  the 


II.    JOHN  163 


former  is  omitted  in  the  latter,  and  that  the  words 
"in  earth"  in  verse  8  in  the  former  are  also  omitted 
in  the  latter.  The  reason  of  this  is  that  there  is  no 
authority  for  the  words  in  any  good  Greek  text.  They 
are  first  found  in  certain  Latin  writers,  from  whose  pages 
they  became  inserted  into  the  Latin  version  of  the 
epistle,  and  were  eventually  introduced  into  late  Greek 
manuscripts  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  they  never 
formed  a  part  of  the  New  Testament  text  at  all,  and 
it  is  most  unfortunate  that,  owing  to  the  rashness  of 
Erasmus,  they  ever  got  into  the  authorised  version. 


II.   JOHN 

This  little  letter  professes  to  be  written  by  "the 
Elder,"  but  we  have  no  further  indication  as  to  who  the 
Elder  was.  Later  writers  identified  him  with  the  elder 
John  referred  to  on  p.  49.  This  was  only  natural  from 
the  similarity  between  the  phrasing  of  this  letter  and 
the  first  epistle.  Here  also  we  have  references  to  the 
deceiver  and  the  anti-Christ,  to  the  new  commandment 
and  to  love,  and  in  its  few  sentences  we  have  the  further 
expressions    "truth,"    and    "the    world,"    used    in   the 


i64     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

sense  in  which  they  are  employed,  both  in  the  first 
epistle  and  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  epistle  is  written  to  "the  elect  lady  and  her 
children,"  and  this  phrase  has  given  rise  to  the  dis- 
cussion as  to  whether  it  designates  an  individual  or  a 
church.  Some  of  the  subsequent  matter  in  the  epistle 
seems  more  suitably  addressed  to  a  community  than  to 
a  family,  and  it  would  be  quite  easy  for  the  figurative 
language  to  arise,  especially  if  one  individual  church 
was  in  the  writer's  thoughts.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
expression  was  a  common  one  in  the  letters  of  the 
period  as  a  term  of  endearment  between  friends,  and 
inasmuch  as  the  second  personal  pronoun  is  used  at 
the  close  of  the  epistle,  an  individual  seems  to  be  in- 
tended. We  cannot,  however,  decide  the  matter  defi- 
nitely. The  somewhat  stern  injunction  in  ver.  lo  is 
thought  by  some  to  be  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
writer  of  the  first  epistle,  but  we  can  well  understand 
how  any  one  who  was  eager  about  the  purity  of  Christian 
teaching  might  fear  that  evil  communications  would 
corrupt  good  manners,  and  there  are  many  references 
in  the  early  literature  to  the  risks  involved  in  enter- 
taining false  teachers. 

The   epistle   is    quoted   as   John's   by  Irena^us   and 


in.    JOHN  165 


Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  the  Mur.  Canon  knows  at 
least  two  epistles  of  John,  so  that  we  may  say  this  one 
is  vouched  for  by  the  document.  Origen  and  Eusebius 
are  in  doubt  about  it. 

III.  JOHN 

This  epistle  also  claims  to  be  written  by  the  Elder, 
but  in  this  case  to  a  definite  person,  Gaius,  of  whom, 
however,  we  know  nothing  else.  Jiilicher  has  pointed  out 
that  the  praise  which  is  given  to  him  in  vers.  3  and  4 
is  not  easily  harmonised  with  the  warning  in  ver.  11, 
since  it  is  scarcely  likely  that  the  writer  would  suppose 
that  a  man  to  whom  he  has  just  given  such  a  high 
character  for  Christian  conduct  would  be  in  almost  the 
same  breath  described  as  likely  to  become  an  imitator 
of  an  unworthy  disciple.  This  is  not  at  all  a  conclusive 
argument,  seeing  that  a  parallel  may  be  found  in  many 
passages  in  Paul's  letters,  if  not  in  the  case  of  individuals, 
certainly  of  communities.  The  two  other  persons  men- 
tioned in  the  epistle  are  Diotrephes  and  Demetrius ;  the 
former  is  spoken  of  sternly  as  the  leader  of  the  party 
opposed  to  the  writer,  and  as  himself  of  a  masterful  and 
ambitious  temper.  He  also  appears  to  have  been  quarrel- 
some and  intolerant.     Demetrius  contrasts  with  him  as  a 


i66     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

loyal  disciple,  and  well-esteemed  among  his  brethren, 
but  beyond  this  we  know  nothing  of  either  of  the  men. 
There  is  too  little  material  in  the  epistle  to  say  that  it 
contains  strong  internal  evidence  for  the  same  author- 
ship as  any  of  the  other  books  contained  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  such  evidence  as  it  does  afford  links  it 
closely  with  the  second  epistle. 

We  need  not  be  surprised  that  the  external  evidence 
for  such  a  short  and  unimportant  writing  is  not  strong. 
There  is  no  certain  evidence  of  it  before  the  third 
century,  and  Eusebius  reckons  it  among  the  disputed 
books.  Whether  the  reference  in  ver.  9  to  the  former 
writing  by  the  same  author  be  to  the  second  epistle  or 
not,  we  cannot  decide,  and  the  main  interest  of  the  writing 
is  twofold.  First,  that  it  gives  us  a  clear  little  miniature 
of  life  in  the  Church  communities  of  the  end  of  the 
first  or  beginning  of  the  second  century ;  and  secondly, 
because  this  little  epistle  bears  the  closest  resemblance 
of  all  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  ordinary 
everyday  letter  of  the  period,  as  these  stand  disclosed  to 
us  in  the  recently  discovered  papyri. 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE   BOOK  OF  THE  REVELATION 

This  name  is  the  Latin  form  of  the  Greek  title  of  the 
book,  namely,  the  Apocalypse,  and  both  names  mean 
in  English,  "the  Unveiling."  To  many  readers  it 
appears  a  very  unappropriate  title  to  apply  to  a  book 
which  has  much  more  the  aspect  of  a  riddle  than  a 
solution  of  riddles.  There  can  be  no  question,  how- 
ever, that  the  latter  was  its  purpose.  It  was  supposed 
to  be  a  key  to  the  many  problems  that  surrounded 
the  Christians  at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  and  the 
strange  form  in  which  the  book  is  cast  arises  from  the 
fact  that  it  belongs  to  a  type  of  literature  unfamiliar 
to  the  English  reader.  The  Old  Testament  is  not 
without  examples  of  Apocalypse.  Perhaps  the  best 
known  is  the  latter  part  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  but  other 
examples  are  to  be  found  in  the  Book  of  Zechariah, 
particularly  chaps,  ix.  to  xiv. ;  the  Book  of  Joel,  par- 
ticularly chap.   ii.   28-31  j  and  in  the  Oracles  against 

167  M 


i68     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

foreign  nations,  found  in  Isa.  xiii.  and  xiv. ;  Jer.  xlvi.- 
Ixi. ;  and  Ezek.  xxv.-xxxii.  One  of  the  most  apocalyptic 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament  is  found  in  what  is 
also  one  of  the  latest  written  sections,  Isa.  xxiv.-xxvii., 
in  which  passage  are  found  two  of  the  great  signs  of 
apocalypse,  the  judgment  upon  angels  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection. 

It  may  be  of  use  to  indicate  one  or  two  charac- 
teristic features  of  apocalypse.  It  is  not  possible  to 
elaborate  the  points  here,  but  further  reference  should 
be  made  to  Professor  Andrews'  volume  in  this  series, 
chaps,  vii.  to  ix.  and  xv. ;  and  also  Professor  Porter's 
volume,  "  The  Messages  of  the  Apocalyptical  Writers," 
published  by  J.  Clarke  &  Co.,  which  contains  a  very 
full  account  of  one  or  two  of  the  lesser  known  books, 
as  well  as  of  the  book  we  are  now  considering. 

The  first  point  to  be  noted  is  that  apocalypse  suc- 
ceeded prophecy.  As  we  have  seen,  certain  passages 
in  the  earlier  prophets  show  trace  of  apocalypse,  and 
the  later  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  are  many  of 
them  apocalyptic.  One  main  distinction  is  that,  while 
the  prophet  spoke  directly  to  his  contemporaries  in 
language  that  was  plain  and  forcible,  the  apocalyptist 
was  a  student  who  used  literary  methods  to  wrap  up 


BOOK    OF    THE    REVELATION     169 

his  message  skilfully  in  secret  and  allusive  language. 
Why  did  he  do  so?  Because  his  work  was  designed 
to  help  those  who  were  exposed  to  persecution,  and 
who  were  depressed  by  their  difficulties.  It  would  often 
have  been  dangerous  to  speak  out  in  plain  language, 
because,  had  the  message  fallen  into  the  hands  of  their 
oppressors,  the  oppression  would  only  have  been  in- 
creased. Thus  it  is  that  we  have  the  weird  figures 
that  fill  the  apocalyptic  pages.  Many  of  the  creatures 
the  apocalyptic  writer  creates  are  monsters,  because 
he  is  not  attempting  to  describe  anything  he  has 
seen,  but  to  build  up  an  imaginary  being,  because  he 
means  it  to  be  artificially  interpreted.  His  lions  and 
eagles  and  many-headed  beasts  are  representatives  of 
kingdoms,  monarchs,  or  governors,  whose  history  and 
final  doom  he  thus  pronounces.  But  if  the  writing 
falls  into  hands  that  have  no  key  to  his  intention,  it 
will  only  seem  like  the  wild  imaginings  of  a  fantastic 
dreamer. 

These  writers  depended  much  upon  the  work  of 
their  predecessors.  One  would  take  up  the  vision  of 
a  former  writer  and  so  modify  it  as  to  apply  more 
exactly  to  the  conditions  of  his  own  time.  We  can 
see  this  in  many  parts  of  the  Book  of  the  Revelation, 


I70     BOOKS    OF    NEW   TESTAMENT 

where  this  writer  works  upon  the  older  apocalypses  of 
Daniel  or  Ezekiel.  The  reader  may  turn  for  two  clear 
examples  to  chap.  i.  13-16,  compared  with  Dan.  vii. 
9-13,  and  X.  5-16;  and  also  chap.  xxii.  i,  2,  with 
Ezek.  xlvii.  1-12.  Sometimes  this  was  done  by  a 
single  writer,  and  his  book  consists  of  what  in  modern 
language  would  be  called  "various  editions,"  and  only 
careful  analysis  can  discover  the  successive  strata. 
This  must  often  have  been  the  work  of  various  editors, 
but  in  no  case  are  their  names  known,  and  the  book 
in  the  form  in  which  we  have  it  may  have  been  the 
growth  of  centuries.  Such  is  the  case  with  one  of 
the  greatest  of  the  apocalypses — that  known  as  the 
Book  of  Enoch.  This  also  is  supposed  by  many 
scholars  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  Book  of  the 
Revelation.  There  are,  for  example,  the  three  sets  of 
seven  signs,  seals,  trumpets,  and  bowls.  It  is  quite 
likely  that  one  of  these  is  original,  and  the  other  two 
successive  modifications  of  the  first  idea.  Similarly, 
we  have  the  fall  of  Rome  described  in  four  different 
ways  in  chaps,  xvii.  to  xix.,  where,  again,  it  is  more 
than  probable  that  the  writer  is  working  over  material 
that  he  found  ready  to  his  hand.  Some  have  thought 
that  there  is   an  original  kernel  of  Jewish  apocalypse 


BOOK    OF   THE    REVELATION     171 

in  the  book,  finally  altered  and  adapted  by  a  Christian 
editor.  Whatever  is  to  be  said  of  this  theory  in  detail, 
there  can  be  little  question  that  it  is  the  real  explanation 
of  chaps,  xii.  and  xiii. 

Apocalypses  seem  to  have  originated  with  the  earliest 
form  of  Pharisaism,  which  means  that  they  were  the 
outcome  of  the  most  intense  form  of  Jewish  patriotism, 
and  this  may  account  for  the  violent  hatred  they  all 
manifest  to  foreign  powers. 

Another  common  feature  of  apocalypse  is  the  use 
by  all  the  writers  of  visions.  Now,  at  first  sight 
it  might  appear  that  these  visions  were  all  actual 
experiences,  but  consideration  of  the  literary  method 
that  has  been  described  and  the  dependence  of  one 
writer  upon  another  shows  that  the  vision  was  fre- 
quently, if  not  always,  a  literary  device.  In  the  early 
days  of  English  poetry  a  great  many  poems  begin 
with  a  poet's  vision  on  a  May  morning.  We  are  not 
to  suppose  that  on  every  occasion  the  poet  actually 
dreamed  such  a  dream  or  saw  such  a  vision,  but  that 
he  has  thrown  his  poetic  imaginings  into  that  form. 

The  apocalyptists  were  also  greatly  concerned  with 
the  Messianic  hope,  the  problem  of  suffering,  and  the 
part  played  by  the  unseen  powers  of  good  and  evil  in 


172     BOOKS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  conduct  of  the  world.  Hence  it  is  that  they  have 
much  to  tell  us  of  angels,  of  heaven,  and  of  hell.  But 
in  all  these  respects  we  must  remember  that  they  are 
echoing  the  popular  thought  of  their  own  day,  and  try 
to  separate  the  eternal  truths  taught  in  their  pages  from 
the  temporal  form  in  which  these  truths  are  presented. 
These  writings  also  contain  a  philosophy  of  history, 
and,  as  such,  are  of  permanent  importance.  They  are 
all  full  of  an  intense  faith  in  God,  and  a  clear  convic- 
tion that  He  will  bring  order  out  of  chaos,  and  a  safe 
issue  out  of  affliction,  for  those  that  put  their  trust 
in  Him.  They  are  books  of  encouragement,  of  strong 
hopefulness,  and  of  brave  faith.  They  are,  as  they  have 
been  well  termed,  "  Tracts  for  Bad  Times,"  but  to  their 
writers  the  dark  cloud  has  always  a  silver  lining,  and 
they  felt  convinced  that  they 

"  Did  not  err  :  there  does  a  sable  cloud 
Turn  forth  her  silver  lining  on  the  night." 
One  final  point  to  be  here  noticed  about  apocalypses 
is  that  they  are  generally  pseudonymous.  For  the  most 
part  they  are  written  in  the  name  of  famous  men  who 
lived  long  before  their  authors'  time,  e.g.  Enoch,  Moses, 
and  Baruch,  but  some  of  the  Christian  apocalypses  are 
written  in  the  name  of  those  who  are  almost,  if  not 


BOOK    OF   THE    REVELATION     173 

quite,  contemporaries,  e.g.  Peter  and  Paul.  This  con- 
sideration has,  as  we  shall  see,  considerable  bearing 
upon  the  authorship  of  the  Book  of  Revelation,  to  which 
question  we  now  turn. 

It  claims  to  be  written  by  John,  but  beyond  the 
name  there  is  no  clear  indication  as  to  which  John  is 
meant.  If  the  tradition  of  the  exile  of  John  of  Ephesus 
to  Patmos  is  trustworthy,  that  would,  of  course,  indicate 
that  he  was  indicated  as  the  author,  but,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  there  is  considerable  question  as  to  who 
John  of  Ephesus  really  was.  The  early  Church  seems 
in  the  main  to  have  assumed  that  John  the  Apostle  was 
the  author  of  the  book.  Justin  Martyr  definitely  calls 
the  author  "one  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ,"  and  Ter- 
tullian  frequently  mentions  it  as  written  by  the  Apostle 
John.  Irenseus,  as  is  his  wont,  calls  John  "a  disciple 
of  the  Lord,"  but  identifies  the  author  with  the  evan- 
gelist, and  Clement  of  Alexandria  seems  to  have  no 
doubt  that  the  author  was  the  Apostle,  and  further 
evidence  can  be  adduced  that  writers  of  the  second 
century  considered  the  book  as  inspired  Scripture  which 
probably  carried  with  it  the  assumption  of  apostolic 
authorship.  A  writer  of  the  third  century,  by  name 
Dionysius,   criticised   the   book  on   the  ground   of  its 


174     BOOKS    OF    NEW   TESTAMENT 

obvious  difference  in  style  and  language  from  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  and  by  one  at  least  of  the  writers  at  the  end  of 
the  second  century  its  authorship  was  attributed  to 
John's  great  opponent,  Cerinthus. 

As  we  have  already  discussed  the  problem  of  the 
authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  only  question  that 
here  concerns  us  is  whether  the  Apocalypse  can  be 
attributed  to  the  same  author.  There  are  undoubtedly 
striking  points  of  resemblance,  e.g.  the  title  "Word  of 
God"  (xix.  13)  applied  to  Christ;  the  name  "Lamb" 
that  is  given  to  Him  in  both  works,  though  the  Greek 
word  differs ;  the  image  of  Water  of  Life,  and  the  term 
"  Shepherd  "  applied  to  Jesus.  Other  phrases  common 
to  the  two  books  are  the  adjective  "true,"  the  phrase 
"he  that  overcometh,"  and  the  words  "witness"  and 
"testimony."  Other  resemblances  are  more  clear  in 
Greek  than  English,  and  for  complete  evidence  on  these 
points  the  student  is  referred  to  the  English  commentary 
of  Swete  and  the  German  commentary  of  Bousset.  In 
spite  of  these,  however,  the  present  writer  is  of  opinion 
that  nothing  more  is  proved  by  them  than  that  the 
writer  of  the  Revelation  is  influenced  by  the  language 
and  thought  that  was  current  in  the  Christian  school  of 
Ephesus.     The  great  distinction  between  the  two  books 


BOOK    OF    THE    REVELATION     175 

is  in  the  language,  the  Greek  of  the  Apocalypse  being 
perfectly  distinct  from  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and 
many  times  the  writer  disregards  all  ordinary  rules  of 
grammar.  It  seems  probable  that  we  should  give  more 
weight  than  is  often  done  to  the  custom  of  apocalyptic 
writers  to  hide  their  own  name  under  that  of  some 
much  more  distinguished  person,  and  to  suppose  that 
the  writer  of  the  Revelation  has  chosen  to  remain 
anonymous,  and  to  produce  his  prophetic  work  under 
the  name  of  the  great  personality,  John. 

The  date  of  the  book  has  given  rise  to  much  dis- 
cussion, but  of  recent  years  there  has  been  a  much  more 
unanimous  return  to  the  early  tradition,  which  places  it 
in  the  reign  of  Domitian,  somewhere  about  the  year 
90.  It  is  quite  clear  that  the  book  was  written  in  a 
period  of  persecution,  and  all  the  circumstances  indicate 
more  closely  the  persecution  under  that  emperor  than 
any  earlier  one.  The  question  largely  depends  upon 
the  interpretation  of  two  difficult  passages  in  the 
symbolism  of  the  Apocalypse,  the  heads  and  horns  of 
chap.  xiii.  and  the  ten  horns  of  chap.  xvii.  It  seems 
obvious  that  these  figures  refer  to  the  Roman  emperors, 
and  it  is  likely  that  in  the  one  case  three  usurping 
emperors  are  omitted,  whereas  in  the  other  case  they 
are  included ;  and  if  this  be  so,  the  later  date  would  be 


176     BOOKS    OF    NEW   TESTAMENT 

supported.  The  generally  accepted  interpretation  of 
the  mysterious  number  666  is  that  it  refers  to  Nero,  and 
the  strange  passages  in  xiii.  3  and  xvii.  1 1  to  the  well- 
known  and  widely-spread  belief  that  Nero  was  himself 
to  return  as  a  mightier  monster  of  iniquity  than  he  had 
been  in  his  first  reign.  The  variations  in  the  forms  of 
reference  to  the  emperors  is  probably  due  to  the  fact 
above  noted,  that  the  Apocalypse  contains  more  than 
one  edition  of  the  writer's  views. 

Many  theories  are  held  about  the  construction  of  the 
book,  some  finding  in  it  many  different  sources,  while 
others  regard  it  as  a  perfect  unity.  There  seems  little 
question  that,  in  common  with  the  other  apocalypses, 
there  are  varying  sources  worked  up  by  a  final  editor, 
but  it  is  not  possible  in  the  compass  of  this  book  to 
discuss  the  many  problems  raised.  The  English  reader 
is  referred  for  further  particulars  to  Bousset's  article 
"  Apocalypse  "  in  the  EncydopcEdia  Biblica^  and  to  Pro- 
fessor Porter's  article  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 
The  general  purpose  of  the  book  has  been  already  in- 
dicated, and  its  permanent  value  is  to  be  found  in  the 
triumphant  faith  it  shows  in  the  final  victory  of  Christ, 
and  in  the  firm  belief  of  the  author  that  in  Him  all  the 
problems,  perplexing  and  intricate,  of  human  history  and 
of  the  progress  of  the  universe  have  their  solution. 


A   BRIEF   LIST   OF   BOOKS  FOR 
FURTHER   STUDY 

In  the  opinion  of  the  present  writer,  the  best  book  on 
introduction  is  "An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment" by  A.  Jiilicher,  published  by  Smith,  Elder  and 
Co. ;  a  shorter,  but  admirable  treatment,  is  to  be  found 
in  Bennett  and  Adeney's  "Biblical  Introduction," 
Methuen.  More  conservative  positions  are  found  in 
the  introductions  of  Marcus  Dods  and  McClymont. 

An  excellent  introduction  to  the  Synoptic  question  is 
found  in  "The  Study  of  the  Gospels,"  by  Armitage 
Robinson,  published  by  Longmans,  while  for  more 
detailed  study  Harnack's  volumes,  "  Luke  the  Physi- 
cian"  and  "The  Sayings  of  Jesus,"  should  be  con- 
sulted. On  the  Fourth  Gospel  two  excellent  books  can 
be  named,  which  are  not  expensive,  and  deal  respectively 
with  the  external  and  internal  problems.  They  are 
each  entitled  "The  Fourth  Gospel";  one  by  Jackson, 
published  by  the  Cambridge  University  Press;  the 
other  by  Scott,  published  by  T.  &  T.  Clark. 

On  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Harnack's  new  volume 
should  be  read,  and  also  Sir  William  Ramsay's  "  St. 
Paul  the  Traveller."  No  better  introduction  to  Paul's 
Epistles  can  be  found  than  Shaw,  "The  Pauline 
Epistles,"  published  by  T.  &  T.  Clark. 

The  introductions  to   the    individual  books   in   the 
various  volumes  of  the  Century  Bible  should  be  care- 
fully studied,  and  also  the  articles  in  the  three  admirable 
dictionaries  edited  by  Dr.  Hastings. 
177 


NOTE   A 

THE   RELATION   OF   THE   FIRST   AND 
FOURTH   GOSPELS 

It  has  been  frequently  noted  that  there  are  certain  passages 
in  the  Synoptics  which  bear  a  close  resemblance  to  the 
language  and  thought  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  notably  Matt. 
xi.  25-30  cf.  with  Luke  x.  21-24,  but  in  the  examination  of 
such  passages  it  becomes  clear  that  Matthew's  Gospel  con- 
tains a  larger  number  of  these  than  does  either  of  the  others, 
and  the  following  passages  should  be  carefully  examined  : — 
Matt.  iii.  17,  where  the  words  spoken  at  the  baptism  are 
Johannine  in  form  ;  Matt.  x.  24,  25  ;  x.  40 ;  xv.  13  ;  xvi. 
17-19;  xviii.  18,  19. 

If  the  First  Gospel  is  correctly  dated  in  this  book,  and  is, 
therefore,  the  latest  of  the  Synoptics,  it  is  intelligible  that 
these  and  similar  sayings  should  be  preserved  in  this  Gospel 
alone.  It  indicates  the  possibility  of  the  evangelist  having 
knowledge  of  a  certain  type  of  recorded  sayings  of  Jesus  to 
which  the  other  Synoptics  had  not  access,  but  which  were 
almost  exclusively  and  much  more  extensively  used  by  the 
author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  In  this  way  we  get  a  confir- 
mation of  the  position  that  Matthew's  book  is  later  than 
Mark  and  Luke. 

NOTE    B 

As  these  pages  were  passing  through  the  press,  a  striking 
volume  appeared,  entitled  "  The  Pauline  Epistles,"  by  Dr. 
R.  Scott,  published  by  Messrs.  T.  &  T.  Clark.  In  this  volume 
an  entirely  fresh  view  is  taken  of  the  character,  constitution, 

178 


NOTE    B  179 


and  date  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The  writer  considers  that 
he  is  able  to  find  the  work  of  four  different  writers  in  the 
works  usually  attributed  to  Paul,  and  his  grouping  of  the 
letters  is  as  follows  : — First  the  strictly  Pauline  group,  con- 
sisting of  I.  Cor.,  except  xv.  20-34  ;  II.  Cor.,  except  vi.  14  to 
vii.  I,  and  xiii.  11-14  ;  Rom.  i.  to  xi.,  and  xvi.  1-16  and  21- 
24  ;  Galatians  and  Philippians.  The  second  or  exhortation 
group  : — Ephesians ;  I.  Thess.  iv.  and  v. ;  II.  Thess.  i.  and  ii. ; 
Rom.  xii.,  xiii.,  xv.  ;  I.  Cor.  xv.  20-34  ;  and  II.  Cor.  vi.  14  to 
vii.  I.  These  Dr.  Scott  assigns  to  Silas,  and  with  them 
associates  Hebrews,  I.  Peter,  and  the  final  editing  of 
Matthew's  Gospel,  all  of  which,  he  thinks,  show  signs  of  the 
same  hand.  The  third,  or  Timothean  group  : — I.  Thess.  i.- 
iii. ;  II.  Thess.  iii. ;  Colossians,  Philippians,  and  probably 
Rom.  xiv.  Fourth,  or  pastoral  group  (in  the  following 
order): — II.  Timothy;  I.  Timothy;  Titus.  To  the  same 
hand  he  also  attributes  the  closing  verses  of  Romans,  and 
he  finds  the  writer  of  all  these  to  be  Luke.  It  is  impossible 
in  this  short  note  to  give  the  reasons  for  these  striking  and 
novel  conclusions.  The  writer  works  out  his  theory  with 
much  patience  and  critical  skill,  but  it  seems  as  if  too  much 
stress  were  laid  upon  minute  points  of  language,  and  not 
enough  consideration  taken  of  the  larger  questions  of 
thought.  He  is  occasionally  too  subjective  in  his  conclu- 
sions, as,  e.g.^  when  he  deals  with  the  authorship  of  the 
Thessalonian  Epistles,  and  says  that  in  them  there  is  an 
entire  absence  of  every  Pauline  characteristic.  Probably 
the  most  valuable  part  of  the  book  is  his  suggestion  of  Luke's 
connection  with  the  last  group  of  epistles.  A  very  valuable 
feature  of  the  volume  will  be  found  in  the  excellent  outlines 
of  the  arguments  of  the  epistles,  and  in  chaps  v.  and  viii., 
which  deal  at  length  with  the  ideas  contained  in  them.  The 
book  is  fresh  and  original,  and  demands  a  thorough  study 
at  the  hand  of  all  careful  students  of  the  subject. 


INDEX 


Alexandria,  39, 135 

Allegory,  83 

Antioch,  43 

Apocalypses,  18,  "jt,  167-173 

AfKJcrypha,  153 

Apocryphal  Gospels,  9-n 

Apollos,  13s 

Aquila,  136 

Aramaic,  25 

Aristion,  32 

Barnabas.  135 
Bczae  Codex,  65 
Bousset,  80,  84,  96,  176 

CANONICITY,  3,  4,  II 

Captivity,  Epistles  of,  102 
Catholic  Epistles,  140 
Cerinthus,  174 
Chrysostom,  63 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  20 
Clement  of  Rome,  19,  88 
Corinth,  85 

Delff,  60 
Dionysius,  173 

EUSEBIUS,  20 

Freer  Manuscript,  33 

Galatia,  78 
Gnosticism,  iii,  159 

Harnack,  43,  103,  128,  136 
Her  mas,  20 

Ignatius,  19,  49,  106 
Irenaeus,  20,  48 


Jerome,  34 
Josephus,  8 
Judaisers,  78,  81 
Justin  Martyr,  20,  22 

Laodiceans,  Epistle  to,  104 
Life  of  Jesus,  sources  of,  6-12 
Literature,  forms  of,  3-5 
Logia,  16 
Luther,  135 

Marcion,  III,  125 

Mark's  Gospel,  conclusion  of,  31 

Medical  language  of  Luke,  46 

Muratorian  Canon,  20 

Origen,  20 

Oxyrhynchus,  11 

Papias,  21,  28,  49 

Papyri,  6g 

Parthians,  letter  to,  i6x 

Petrine  literature,  147 

Polycarp,  19 

Presbyter,  John  the,  49,  163 

Priscilla,  136 

Pseudonymous  authorship,  122 

Salmon,  43 

Synoptics,  12-19 

Tacitus,  8 

TertuUian,  20 

Travel  document,  64 

Unwritten  sayings,  11 
Wellhausen,  58 
Wendt,  57 
Wright,  43 


Printed  by  Ballantyne,  Hansom  &*  Co. 
Edinburgh  dr*  London 


Princeton  Theological  Se 


1    1012  01145  8520 
Date  Due 


APrr 


Ml    i.-^ 


^ 


'  -  >'  'J  *"' 


J  >    i     ' 


>f^Jl 


:.r  ':':^ 


